VOL.  XXIV 


DECEMBER,  1913 


NO.  4 


IRecoros 


ottbe 


Jltttrrtflm  Catljoltf 


of 


gftilaMpfrw 


WITH  WHICH  IS  COMBINED 

AMERICAN  CATHOLIC  HISTORICAL  RESEARCHES 


Published    Quarterly  by  tKe  Society 

715  Spruce  Street,  Philadelphia 
Copyrighted,  1913 


S2.00  PER  YEAR 


SINGLE  NUMBER.  50  CENTS 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner" 289 

By  the  Rev.  H.  T.  Henry,  Litt.D. 

Ambrose  Par£,  Father  of  Modern  Surgery 336 

By  Dr.  Edward  A.  Mallon. 

Life  of  Bishop  Conwell  (Continued) 348 

By  the  late  Martin  I.  J.  Griffin. 

Items  Transatlantic 362 

Books  Reviewed 373 

The  Life  of  Thaddeus  Stevens. 

Loretto  Centennial  Discourses,  1812-1912. 

La  Nouvelle  France. 

^x  and  Title-Page  to  Volume  XXIV. 


coy.«L 


DWafou 
Section 


m 


Records  of  the 
American  Catholic  Historical  Society 


Vol.  XXIII 


December,  1913 


No.  4 


THE  AIR  OF  THE  "STAR-SPANGLED  BANNER" 

THE  resolution  which  Mr.  Paul  Prodoehl,  a  delegate 
from  Baltimore,  offered  last  summer  at  the  general 
assembly  of  the  German  Catholic  Central  Verein  at  Buf- 
falo, rejecting  "America"  and  suggesting  "The  Star- 
Spangled  Banner"  as  the  proper  National  song  of 
America,  called  forth  some  criticism  in  the  daily  news- 
papers. The  Public  Ledger  (7  August)  remarked  edi- 
torially:  "Are  those  who  object  to  the  origin  of  'Amer- 
ica's '  tune  aware  that  the  melody  of  'The  Star-Spangled 
Banner '  was  originally  a  rousing  drinking  song,  entitled 
'  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven,'  and  that  where  we  sing  of  the 
rocket's  red  glare  and  bombs  bursting  in  air  the  baccha- 
nalians chanted:  'Voice,  fiddle  and  flute,  no  longer  be 
mute'?"  The  New  York  Evening  Sun  of  the  same 
date  thinks  that  "  no  one  has  any  doubt  at  all  about  the 
English  origin  of  the  tune  to  which  we  sing  'The  Star- 
Spangled  Banner'." 

Commenting  on  the  utterance  of  the  Evening  Sun,  a 
writer  in  America  (New  York,  16  August,  p.  450)  says: 


290  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

Well,  the  "  Sun  "  is  quite  wrong:.  No  less  an  authority  on 
musical  history  than  Dr.  W.  H.  Grattan  Flood  is  quite  certain 
that  the  tune  is  not  of  English  origin  at  all,  and  gave  his 
proofs  in  the  "Ave  Maria,"  July  6,  1912.  Key  directed  his 
song  to  be  sung  to  the  air  "  Anacreon  in  Heaven."  This  song 
was  first  published  in  America  by  Matthew  Carey,  an  Irish- 
man, in  "The  Vocal  Companion,"  1796.  Now,  the  London 
record  indexes  show  that  Stafford  Smith,  the  alleged  English 
composer  of  the  air,  entered  the  copyright  of  his  "  Fifth  Book 
of  Canzonets,"  the  collection  which  contained  it,  on  May  14, 
1799,  and  he  had  only  arranged  the  tune  in  form  of  a  glee; 
and  though  he  lived  till  1836,  he  never  laid  claim  to  its  com- 
position. "Anacreon  in  Heaven  "  had  in  fact  been  printed 
in  1 77 1,  before  Smith  had  published  anything.  The  music 
and  words  were  reprinted  by  Anne  Lee,  of  Dublin,  in  1780, 
and  it  had  appeared  in  many  collections  before  Smith  included 
it  in  his. 

Dr.  Grattan  Flood  asserts  that  the  tune  is  Irish  and  was 
probably  composed  by  Turlough  O'Carolan,  the  last  of  the 
Bards,  about  1730.  The  words  "Anacreon  in  Heaven"  cer- 
tainly originated  in  Ireland  previous  to  1770,  though  they 
were  slightly  altered  in  the  subsequent  reprints,  and  the  air 
has  all  the  characteristics  of  O'Carolan,  as  a  comparison  of 
"Anacreon"  with  his  "Bumpers,  Squire  Jones,"  will  make 
evident.  The  legend  of  the  air's  English  origin  was  created 
by  Chappell,  who  mistook  Smith's  collection  for  his  composi- 
tion: and  Mr.  Sonneck,  chief  of  the  division  of  music  in  the 
Library  of  Congress,  followed  Chappell.  Dr.  Flood  has 
demonstrated  their  error;  hence  the  preference  of  "The  Star- 
Spangled  Banner"  to  "America"  on  the  grounds  of  origin 
involves  no  inconsistency,  and  the  "  Sun's  "  little  barb  misses 
its  mark.  If,  as  seems  probable,  this  magnificent  national  air 
came  originally  from  Ireland,  there  is  a  fittingness  in  its  being 
set  to  the  deathless  song  that  was  inspired  by  the  sight  of 
America's  flag  floating  triumphant  from  Fort  MacHenry. 
Dr.  MacHenry,  Washington's  army  surgeon  from  1776  and 
Secretary  of  War  in  1796,  and  for  whom  the  fort  was  named, 
was  an  Irishman. 


The  Air  of  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  "        291 

This  clear  and  condensed  summary  of  the  article  in  the 
Ave  Maria  is  reprinted  here  for  two  reasons :  first,  it 
exhibits  the  main  contentions  of  the  article  in  easily 
intelligible  form  ;  secondly,  it  lends  itself  readily  to  full 
quotation.  A  word  in  addition  about  this  second  rea- 
son. Within  a  week  after  its  publication  in  America  the 
summary  appeared,  with  due  credit,  in  another  Catholic 
weekly  paper,  and  it  may  well  be  that  many  Catholic 
papers  have  reproduced  it  since  then.1 

There  is  some  ground,  therefore,  for  fearing  the 
growth  of  a  legend  which  later  may  return  to  plague  us. 
For  the  simple  truth  is  that  everything  about  the  origin 
of  the  air  of  our  national  anthem  is  very  far  from  being 
as  clear  as  Dr.  Flood  would  have  his  readers  believe.  It 
is  true  that  he  has  "no  hesitation"  in  claiming  the  air 
as  of  Irish  origin,  but  we  are  under  no  obligation  to 
share  his  confidence  in  this  respect,  for  his  assertions  are 
not  supported  either  by  convincing  reasons  or  by  ade- 
quate references.  His  argument  based  on  the  charac- 
teristics of  the  melody  is  one  which  I  shall  enable  my 
readers  to  estimate  at  its  true  value. 

Meanwhile,  what  I  shall  have  to  say  here  is  not  meant 
as  an  adverse  criticism  of  the  clear  and  condensed  sum- 
mary itself,  which  is  like  a  mirror  in  its  faithful  reflection 
of  the  impression  made  by  the  original  article  on  a  cul- 
tured and  thoughtful  reader.  Neither  is  it  my  purpose 
to  deny  an  Irish  origin  to  the  tune.  My  sole  desire  is 
to  prove  that  Dr.  Flood  himself  proves  nothing  in  his 
article.     We  may  hope  thus  to  preserve  an  open  mind 

1  Since  writing  this,  a  friend  has  sent  me  a  clipping  frcm  the  San 
Francisco  Leader  of  11  October,  1013,  containing  the  summary.  It 
has  thus  travelled  the  whole  width  of  the  country,  frcm  the  Atlantic 
Coast  to  the  Pacific.  I  have  not  searched  the  files  of  any  Catholic 
papers,  but  I  may  fairly  suppose  that  the  summary  has  appeared  in 
many  others.     The  Leader  also  gives  due  credit  to  America. 


292  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

on  the  subject,  and  to  avoid  entangling  ourselves  in  a 
weak  argument  for  a  cause  which  otherwise  might  enlist 
our  hearty  support.  I  am  encouraged  in  this  pursuit  of 
an  ungrateful  task  by  recalling  how  patiently  and  how 
minutely  one  of  the  great  founders  of  our  Society,  Mr. 
Martin  I.  J.  Griffin,  labored  to  attain  historical  accuracy, 
even  though  the  quest  should  lead  at  times  to  the  over- 
throw of  certain  pleasant  convictions  entertained  by 
Catholic  speakers  and  writers. 

Also  I  may  hope  that  the  present  paper  will  prove  of 
interest  to  us,  as  the  subject  not  only  is  attractive  in 
itself  but  also  has  been  the  occasion  of  not  a  little  con- 
troversy, and  I  can  only  trust  that  it  may  not  merit 
Waller's  criticism  of  Milton's  Paradise  Lost :  "  If  its 
length  be  not  considered  a  merit,  it  hath  no  other/' 

Summary  of  Results 
The  length  of  the  following  article  may  prevent  the 
accomplishment  of  my  main  purpose  in  writing  it,  namely, 
to  hinder  the  growth  of  a  legend  whose  repetition  is 
much  easier  than  its  defence.  A  brief  statement  of  the 
principal  points  touched  upon  may  therefore  be  permit- 
ted here.     I  hope  to  show  that : 

1.  The  article  in  the  Ave  Maria  is  misleading  both  in 
its  assertions  and  in  its  omissions. 

2.  "Anacreon"  has  hardly  any  characteristic  resem- 
blance to  "  Bumper." 

3.  The  words  were  most  probably  composed  by  Tom- 
linson  ;  the  tune  by  Smith. 

4.  Mr.  Sonneck's  singularly  careful  Report  to  Con- 
gress is  completely  misrepresented  in  Dr.  Flood's  article. 

5.  There  is  no  evidence,  or  even  what  purports  to  be 
such,  that  the  tune  is  Irish  in  origin,  or  that  the  words 
''emanated  from  Ireland  about  the  year  1765."  In  brief, 
there  is  no  real  basis  for  Dr.  Flood's  claim. 


The  Air  of  the  "  S tar-Spangled  Banner  "         293 

So  much  for  the  main  purpose  of  my  article.  A  sub- 
sidiary purpose — and  one  rendered  desirable  by  reason  of 
the  main  purpose — is  to  give  some  adequate  idea  of  the 
present  results  of  a  lively  discussion  carried  on  in  the 
last  few  years  concerning  the  origin  of  the  air.  Into  an 
account  of  the  earlier  vague  and  sometimes  rather  ludi- 
crous ascriptions  and  contentions  I  do  not  enter,  but  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  as  late  as  the  year  1890  Grove's 
Dictio7iary  of  Music  did  not  contain,  even  in  its  Appen- 
dix, any  notice  of  our  national  air,  while  the  revised 
edition  (ed.  by  J.  A.  Fuller  Maitland)  of  1908  has  an 
article  of  considerable  length  on  the  subject,  contributed 
by  Mr.  Frank  Kidson,  the  noted  English  musical  anti- 
quary. In  1909  Mr.  O.  G.  Sonneck,  chief  of  the  Division 
of  Music  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  presented  to  Con- 
gress an  elaborate  study  of  four  of  our  national  airs,  and 
brought  the  discussion  of  the  history  of  the  "  Star- 
Spangled  Banner "  down  to  date  with  finest  critical 
acumen.  Mr.  John  Henry  Blake,  an  American  inventor, 
worked  patiently  in  London  and  discovered,  in  October, 
1910,  the  important  date  of  copyright  of  Smith's  Fifth 
Book  of  Canzonets,  etc.,  containing  the  air  "harmonized 
by  the  author,"  and  subsequently  came  upon  another 
volume  of  Smith's  (1780)  containing  an  entirely  different 
"Anacreontic,"  which  was  perhaps  the  cause  of  mis- 
apprehension as  to  the  date  of  the  Anacreontic  Song 
(the  source  of  our  air)  subsequently  copyrighted  by  him 
(in  1799).  In  1912  Dr.  Flood  contended  for  the  Irish 
origin  of  the  tune,  and  seemed  to  imply  that  it  was 
probably  composed  by  O'Carolan. 

The  Positive  Argument 

The  argument  in  the  Ave  Maria  is  partly  negative, 
partly  positive.  The  negative  part  consists  in  an  attempt 
to  eliminate  the  commonly  accepted  English  claim  to  the 


294  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

tune  of  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven"  (the  tune,  namely,  of 
"The  Star-Spangled  Banner)."  The  positive  part  at- 
tempts to  establish  an  Irish  origin  for  the  air. 

This  is  the  logical  order  followed  by  Dr.  Flood.  The 
present  article  reverses  that  order  and  considers,  first  of 
all,  the  attempt  to  prove  an  Irish  origin.  If  (as  I  think 
can  be  clearly  shown)  the  argumentation  of  Dr.  Flood 
has  no  good  basis  in  fact,  and  was  therefore  foredoomed 
to  failure,  the  elimination  of  this  new  factor  from  the 
problem  of  the  authorship  will  enable  the  reader  to  con- 
sider dispassionately  the  previously  accepted  view  that 
the  air  was  composed  by  an  Englishman,  John  Stafford 
Smith.  The  effect  which  Mr.  Blake's  recent  discovery 
has  on  the  problem  can  then  be  intelligently  discussed 
and  estimated. 

The  positive  argument  is  found  in  the  third  paragraph 
from  the  end  of  Dr.  Flood's  article : 

Having-  thus  eliminated  the  English  claim  to  the  tune,  I  have 
no  hesitation  in  claiming  the  tune  as  of  Irish  origin.  Further- 
more, it  has  all  the  characteristics  of  a  composition  by  the 
famous  Turlough  O'Carolan,  as  can  easily  be  tested  by  a 
comparison  of  "Anacreon"  with  O'Carolan's  "Bumpers, 
Squire  Jones."  As  O'Carolan  died  on  March  25,  1738,  the 
tune  may  be  dated  from  about  the  year  1730,  if  not  earlier. 
His  fine  melody  known  as  the  "  Arethusa  "  was  appropriated 
by  the  English,  and  was  included  for  over  a  century  as  a 
"  fine  old  English  melody,"  until  1  disproved  the  ascription 
and  showed  its  rightful  provenance. 

This  is  all  of  the  positive  proof:  (1)  the  absence  of 
hesitation  on  Dr.  Flood's  part  in  claiming  an  Irish  origin 
for  the  tune;  (2)  the  possession  by  the  tune  of  all  the 
characteristics  of  another  tune  by  O'Carolan;  (3)  the 
English  opinion  that  another  song  by  O'Carolan  was 
English,  until  Dr.  Flood  proved  the  opposite  (but  per- 


The  Air  of  the  "  S tar-Spangled  Banner  "        295 

haps  this  last  statement  was  added  not  by  way  of  proof 
or  argument  but  merely  as  a  ratio  convenientiae,  as 
theologians  say). 

The  statements  in  the  quoted  paragraph  will  be  taken 
up  here  in  their  order,  but  will  be  placed  under  headings 
intended  briefly  to  interpret  and  to  characterize  them. 

1.  Expert  Opinion 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  claiming  the  tune  as  of  Irish  origin. 

These  are  the  words  of  "  no  less  an  authority  on  mu- 
sical history"  than  Dr.  Flood,  as  the  writer  in  America 
justly  remarks,  for  Dr.  Flood  has  written  much  on  mus- 
ical antiquities.1 

It  may  be  said  in  general  that  the  opinion  of  an  expert 
is  naturally  worthy  of  careful  consideration  and  respect, 
although  he  may  not  always  be  able  clearly  to  define  the 
basis  of  that  opinion.  His  whole  general  knowledge  and 
a  certain  kind  of  instinct  born  of  his  wide  experience  in 
restricted  fields  of  investigation  will  help  him  to  form  a 
judgment,  or  at  least  a  probable  opinion,  on  some  con- 
troverted matter — and  this  is  valuable.  It  may  never- 
theless be  that  Dr.  Flood  is  over-enthusiastic  in  some  of 
his   advocacies,  and   it   is    common    knowledge  that   an 

'In  1905  he  published  his  "History  of  Irish  Music"  (Dublin,  360 
pages)  and  his  "Story  of  the  Harp"  (London,  230  pages).  The  title- 
page  of  the  former  volume  shows  that  he  was  then  the  organist  of 
Enniscorthy  Cathedral,  Vice-President  of  the  Irish  Folk-Song  Society, 
member  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Antiquaries.  In  191 1  he  published  his 
"Story  of  the  Bagpipe,"  while  he  has  contributed  many  papers  to 
prominent  magazines  and  articles  to  the  "Catholic  Encyclopedia." 
He  is  a  Doctor  of  Music  and  a  member  of  the  Royal  Irish  Academy. 
Finally,  the  Holy  Father  has  made  him  a  Knight  of  St.  Gregory. 
His  words  must  therefore  have  great  weight  as  coming  from  a  qualified 
scholar  in  the  fields  both  of  music  and  of  musical  history.  His  article 
in  the  Ave  Maria,  however,  bears  the  appearance  of  haste  in  its  com- 
position. The  interests  of  correctness  justify  me  in  reviewing  it  ad- 
versely. 


296  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

enthusiastic  champion  of  any  cause  is  rather  apt  to  see 
the  things  he  wishes  to  see,  will  unconsciously  empha- 
size the  things  that  make  for  his  argument,  and  will  with 
similar  unconsciousness  find  little  of  moment  in  the 
things  which  militate  against  a  cherished  conviction. 

At  all  events  it  is  our  present  ungrateful  task  to  review 
his  statements  about  the  air  of  "Anacreon."  A  reader 
of  the  Ave  Maria  article  must  have  noticed  that  Dr. 
Flood  failed  to  give  references  when  he  made  some  very 
startling  statements  (e.  g.,  that  the  words  of  "Anacreon  "' 
"evidently  emanated  from  Ireland  about  the  year  1765."^ 
This  is  a  point  of  capital  importance,  but  it  goes  forth 
"without  note  or  comment").  I  must  next  call  atten- 
tion to  a  notable  inconsistency  in  his  statements  made  in 
Church  Music  (September,  1909,  p.  281)  and  in  the  Ave 
Maria  (6  July,  1912,  pp.  19,  20).  In  Church  Music  he 
said  (italics  mine): 

In  June,  1904,  .  .  .  Dr.  Cummings,  in  his  lecture  on  "  Old 
English  Songs"  .  .  .proved  conclusively  that  Smith  was  the 
composer  [of  the  tune  of  "Anacreon"]. 

In  the  Ave  Maria  he  now  makes  no  mention  of  his 
previous  conviction  of  absolute  proof  for  Smith's  author- 
ship, and  roundly  rejects  the  ascription,  proving  to  his 
own  satisfaction  that  the  tune  is  not  only  not  the  com- 
position of  Smith,  but  is  not  even  of  English  origin. 

Again,  in  Church  Music,  he  had  said  : 

Smith  was  in  his  21st  year  when  he  composed  the  music  in 
1 770-1.  .  .  .  The  most  decisive  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  tune 
was  composed  by  Smith  is  that  he  includes  it  in  his  Fifth 
Collection  of  Canzonets,  Catches,  etc.,  in  1781. 

In  the  Ave  Maria,  however,  he  makes  a  volta  faccia  of 
the  most  pronounced  type,  with  not  a  hint  of  his  former 
positive  assertion.     He  now  writes : 


The  Air  of  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  "         297 

Mr.  Sonneck  is  wrong  in  following*  Chappell's  view  both  as 
regards  the  composer  of  the  melody  and  the  date.  He  says 
that  John  Stafford  Smith  included  the  tune  in  his  "  Fifth 
Book  of  Canzonets,"  published  between  1780  and  1790,  and 
that  Smith  "  probably"  composed  it  about  1771. 

In  other  words,  the  burden  of  the  opinion  now  dis- 
credited by  Dr.  Flood,  but  formerly  held  by  him  as 
"  proved  conclusively,"  is  laid  on  the  shoulders  of  Mr. 
Sonneck;  and  this  is  done  despite  the  clearest  possible 
evidence  that  Mr.  Sonneck  did  not  share  the  common 
conviction  of  Smith's  authorship.  Here  are  the  exact 
words  of  Mr.  Sonneck  {Report,  p.  23): 

Probably  Smith  composed  it,  if  he  really  did  compose  the  tune, 
as  a  song  for  one  voice,  and  in  "  harmonizing"  it  for  several 
and  different  voices  he  felt  obliged  to  wander  away  from  the 
original.  Of  course,  if  the  supposed  1771  sheet  song  was 
a  sheet  song  for  one  voice,  and  if  it  contained  Smith's  name 
as  composer,  then  all  doubt  as  to  the  original  form  and  to  the 
composer  vanishes. 

I  have  italicised  the  words  of  doubt  and  hesitation 
wherein  Mr.  Sonneck  exhibited  his  lack  of  concurrence  in 
the  commonly  accepted  ascription  to  Smith.  How  (un- 
less we  assume  that  Dr.  Flood  wrote  very  hastily)  can 
we  politely  characterize  the  method  of  quotation  used  by 
Dr.  Flood:  "Mr.  Sonneck  .  .  .  says  that  John  Stafford 
Smith  .  .  .  'probably'  composed  it  about  1771"?  Mr. 
Sonneck  is  not  speaking,  on  page  23  of  his  Report,  of  the 
question  of  ascription,  but  of  the  differing  forms  of  the 
melody  for  single  voice  and  for  several  voices ;  but  even 
then  he  takes  new  occasion  to  exhibit  his  doubt  as  to  the 
current  ascription,  in  the  words  :  "  if  he  really  did  com- 
pose the  tune";  and,  instead  of  saying,  as  Dr.  Flood 
makes  him  do,  that  Smith  "  probably "  composed  it 
about  1771,  Mr.  Sonneck  distinctly  hesitates  to  accept 


298  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

the  asserted  1771  sheet  by  writing:  "if  the  supposed 
1771   sheet  song  .  .  .  and  if  it  contained  Smith's  name. 

Will  it  be  believed  that,  having  thus  incorrectly  bur- 
dened Mr.  Sonneck  with  an  opinion  which  Dr.  Flood  had 
himself  previously  declared  to  be  "proved  conclusively," 
Dr.  Flood  should  have  the  hardihood  to  continue  as  fol- 
lows? 

It  is  simply  amazing  how  one  writer  blindly  copies  another 
without  taking  pains  to  verify  facts.  Mr.  Sonneck  compla- 
cently followed  the  statement  made  by  Chappell  as  to  the 
music  of  "  Anacreon  in  Heaven." 

If,  in  the  face  of  this  literary  cataclysm,  we  have  leisure 
to  indulge  a  sense  of  humor,  we  shall  find  good  oppor- 
tunity therefor  in  the  reflection  that  Dr.  Flood  "  compla- 
cently followed  "  Dr.  Cummings  in  believing  that  Smith's 
authorship  had  been  "  proved  conclusively,"  and  later  on 
"  complacently  followed  "  Mr.  Blake  in  the  "indisputable 
evidence"  (the  phrase  is  Dr.  Flood's)  that  Smith  had 
"merely  arranged  the  tune  in  the  form  of  a  'glee,'  and 
that  he  did  not  claim  any  copyright  for  the  tune." 

Dr.  Cummings  "proved  conclusively"  that  Smith 
composed  the  air ;  Mr.  Blake  found  "  indisputable  evi- 
dence "  that  Smith  did  not  compose  the  air.  We  begin 
to  doubt  these  superlatives. 

Our  trust  in  an  expert  in  any  field  of  human  endeavor 
must  largely  be  based  on  the  assumption  that,  in  debat- 
able and  obscure  matters,  his  views  are  arrived  at  slowly 
and  are  expressed  with  moderation  of  statement. 

Such  phrases  as  "  proved  conclusively"  and  "  indisput- 
able evidence"  are  rather  strong  ones,  and  Dr.  Flood  is 
apt  to  indulge  freely  in  them.  In  an  article  in  The  Dol- 
phin (Phila.,  1905,  vol.  viii,  pp.  187-193)  claiming  "Yan- 
kee Doodle"  as  Irish  in  melody,  we  find  him  vindicating 


The  Air  of  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  "         299 

an  Irish  authorship  of  other  songs  with  the  phrases  "un- 
doubtedly Irish",  "not  a  shadow  of  doubt",  "unques- 
tionable Irish  origin" — all  in  one  paragraph.  Again,  in 
the  Ave  Maria  article,  the  tune  of  "  The  Star-Spangled 
Banner"  has  "all  the  characteristics"  of  one  by 
O'Carolan. 

The  words  of  the  "  Anacreon  in  Heaven  "  could  be 
traced  (and  even  thus,  only  with  some  probability)  back 
to  1 770-1,  and  this  was  an  element  in  fixing  that  as  the 
date  of  composition  of  the  tune.  If  these  words  dated 
farther  back,  and  if  they  were  not  even  of  English  origin, 
but  instead  were  of  Irish  origin,  it  is  needless  to  suggest 
the  total  reconstruction  of  our  ideas  thus  made  necessary 
in  treating  of  the  tune.  In  the  Ave  Maria,  Dr.  Flood 
says  that  the  words  are  of  Irish  origin,  and  "  evidently 
emanated  from  Ireland  about  the  year  1765.  "  But  where 
is  the  evidence  either  that  they  were  Irish  or  that  they 
emanated  from  Ireland  "  about  the  year  1765  "  ?  Dr.  Flood 
whets  our  curiosity,  but  leaves  it  without  the  shadow  of 
satisfaction — for  "further  deponent  sayeth  not.  " 

When,  therefore,  Dr.  Flood,  "  having  thus  eliminated 
the  English  claim  to  the  tune,  "  declares  that  he  has  "  no 
hesitation"  in  claiming  it  as  of  Irish  origin,  we  begin 
faintly  to  suspect  the  value  of  his  absence  of  hesitation. 
His  language  is  not  marked  by  that  moderation  which 
we  should  expect  in  obscure  matters  ;  his  statements  are 
unsupported  by  adequate  references ;  and,  as  we  have 
already  shown,  his  certainty  of  one  day  is  contradicted 
by  his  certainty  of  another  day. 

2.  Musical  Characteristics. 

Furthermore,  it  [the  tune  of  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven"] 
has  all  the  characteristics  of  a  composition  by  the  famous 
Turlough  O'Carolan,  as  can  easily  be  tested  by  a  comparison 
of  "  Anacreon  "  with  O'Carolan's  "  Bumpers,  Squire  Jones." 


300  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

This  is  the  only  positive  argument  for  the  Irish  prove- 
nance of  the  tune  of  our  national  song.  It  "  has  all  the 
characteristics"  of  a  song  by  O'Carolan.  Again  we  ob- 
serve the  somewhat  superlative  character  of  the  phrase- 
ology used  by  Dr.  Flood.  It  is  not,  however,  necessary 
for  us  to  deny  or  qualify  his  statement,  for  he  himself 
has  already  furnished  us  with  a  previously  uttered  view 
of  the  characteristics  of  the  tune.  When  he  was  prov- 
ing in  Church  Music  (ut  supra,  p.  282),  that  the  Eng- 
lish composer,  Smith,  was  its  author,  he  wrote  : 

Smith  was  in  his  21st  year  when  he  composed  the  music  in 
1 770-1,  and  internal  evidence  clearly  points  to  the  influence  of 
Boyce,  under  whom  he  was  then  studying:  indeed,  some  of 
the  phrases  are  strongly  reminiscent  of  Boyce's  "  Heart  of 
Oak." 

The  italics  in  the  above  paragraph  are  ours.  They  are 
like  a  sign-post  set  up  in  the  weary  journey  of  investiga- 
tion, to  warn  us  against  too  ready  a  trust  in  the  value 
of  internal  evidence.  "Characteristics"  are  internal 
evidence  of  a  certain  kind.  Our  tune  "  has  all  the  char- 
acteristics "  of  one  by  the  Irish  musician  O'Carolan;  but 
it  nevertheless  is  able,  of  itself,  to  point  to  the  influence 
upon  its  composition,  of  the  eminent  English  musician, 
Boyce,  and  "some  of  the  phrases",  even,  are  "  strongly 
reminiscent"  of  Boyce's  "Heart  of  Oak."  Who  will 
not  recall  here  the  answers  of  the  courtly  Polonius  to 
the  melancholy  Dane? 

Hamlet. — Do  you  see  yonder  cloud  that's  almost  in  shape 
of  a  camel? 

Polonius. — By  the  mass,  and  't  is  like  a  camel,  indeed. 
Hamlet. — Methinks  it  is  like  a  weasel. 
Polonius. — It  is  backed  like  a  weasel. 
Hamlet. — Or  like  a  whale? 
Polonius. — Very  like  a  whale. 


The  Air  of  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  "         301 

The  truth  appears  to  be  that  in  attempting  to  trace  the 
history  of  tunes,  musical  historians  are  becoming  afraid 
to  lay  much  stress  on  "characteristics/'  or  even  on  mel- 
odic similarities.  Musicians  borrow  unconsciously  from 
one  another ;  and  there  are  musical  phrases  which  are 
common  property.  The  present  writer  once  played 
"Yankee  Doodle"  (slowly,  and  with  a  full  and  sober 
harmony)  for  a  competent  musical  critic,  who  hesitated 
to  assign  its  authorship  positively,  but  thought  it  was 
either  by  Mozart  or  by  Haydn.  Archbishop  Ryan  once 
heard  an  orchestra  play  Dvorak's  Hmnoresque,  and  some 
time  afterwards  desired  the  orchestra  to  repeat  "  that 
Irish  melody."  And  Mr.  Sonneck  remarks  in  his  Report 
(p.  78):  "  The  efforts  unreservedly  to  attribute  the  air  of 
'God  Save  the  King'  to  Dr.  John  Bull  (1619),  merely 
because  a  few  notes  are  similar,  remind  me  of  Mr.  Elson's 
witty  observation  that  with  such  arguments  the  main 
theme  of  the  last  movement  of  Beethoven's  Ninth 
Symphony  would  come  very  close  to  being  inspired  by 
•Yankee  Doodle.'" 

Apropos  of  this,  in  The  Dolphin  (loc.  cit.),  Dr.  Flood 
contended  for  the  Irish  origin  of  "  Yankee  Doodle," 
urging  that  "  the  very  structure  of  this  tune  is  seen  to  be 
decidedly  Irish,  and  apart  from  any  other  argument  in- 
trinsic evidence  should  point  to  its  Irish  origin."  Here- 
upon Mr.  Sonneck  {Report,  p.  146)  countered  with  the 
contention  :  "  Since  the  structure  of  the  melody  has  been 
claimed  with  equal  enthusiasm  as  decidedly  Hessian, 
Hungarian,  Scotch,  English,  etc. — indeed,  in  his  letter 
quoted  above,  Mr.  D.  F.  Scheurleer  called  my  attention 
to  the  similarity  of  '  Yankee  Doodle  '  with  the  tunes  of 
the  itinerant  Savoyards — Mr.  Grattan  Flood's  manifestly 
sincere  assertion  cannot  be  accepted  without  very  careful 
proof  as  'intrinsic  evidence.'" 


COMPARISON  OP  CHARACTERISTICS. 


I. 

(1 

Bumper,"  etc. 

1    h 

1 

II.    "Anacreon,"  etc. 
2 

/ 

i^fi-l* — ' 

JT N — 1 K f* — fr- 

.. 

<T 

f—H-J 

~~m    i*  i*  i 

P\ 1 

— f-J _f     ,  '    «' — rf- 

1 

tj 

&ir^=\ 

•  -J-  -J-  -J- 

K        >     » 

-#- 

mm9           ■ 

N 

~~ m Z — F ! !*_ 

ss 

L^S^ 

Hd 

m    -  \      o       i 

-1      «*       *         — *- 

#?~f   Pi    -m 

4 

5 

~f — p — - — ■ — =— 

W—^-m — J- 

— « — P — P — | ^ — 

-J 

;       ^hs 

— — b     1/     i*     L>     E 
iv — js 

6 

&& • — -d 1 P 1 — m 

7 
, — r\ 

—m 

— m 1 

— i 

— b* 

8 

i$r- — •— m   •   ' — 

V  -#  -r 

Is     fcrs    i 

— #v-| m^ 1— 

~=^ 

— fc-A 

_^Vjj *— - #— 

gr    #  j*«N — ^ 

•      0 

J^L 

"  "  *    d — !— -^-V— ^ 

9 

lO 

11 

- 

/j^       f       m       f                m       ? 

i^i           •    * 

T      1*      m 

\,    r    •    A    ^    ^ 

/flY7 

^     y 

p 

V1-.;                1/           1,     1/ 

*                  y       *        * 

v     \j     1/     ! , 

t)                               " 

■"                 * 

/ i7      m  r  '     1        1               1*   # 

a      P      *              m    " 

-                   N       *  N 

v^       brfcr     b1— 1 5*— 

m     f     \       |              f  * 

-£—* 

f     d.    J*d 

7      -V"  r—                    ^* 

[4ULJL1 ftj 

*-V 

-V 

-A— K V p 1 

13 
m— f—m     t-^r-* 

14 
-#— f — 0 — *— -_#-. 

b ^ ^ ^ C jT— 

— i — i — h — p* — fs — ^- 

4*  »  — U  '  U   c  ^ 

N-ySs PV--^ 

Of- —    j  ;  *  •  ^ 

m—m—m— 

— ^i  ^  '^  * 

15 

16 

-A                                                                 r 

^ -^ 1      : 

___                        # 
— ^i^    — ^ - 

m      *      ?              m      m      m      -    - 

P5                _fes-  u   -t      gj 

L-B^-        —is — f— ^ 

Note.— Musical  readers  may  think  that  the  first  two  notes  (a  sixteenth  fol- 
lowed by  a  dotted  eighth)  of  "  Anacreon  "  should  be. a  thirty-second  followed 
by  a  dotted  sixteenth.  I  follow,  however,  the  exact  engraving  in  the  "Anne 
Lee"  (of  which  a  photographic  copy  is  given  by  Mr.  Blake)  with  the  single 
exception,  of  course,  that  I  reduce  from  6-4  time  to  6-8. 


The  Air  of  the  "  S tar-Spangled  Banner  "         303 

I  have  devoted  perhaps  too  much  space  to  an  a  priori 
judgment  of  musical  characteristics  and  similarities  as  de- 
termining elements  in  the  formation  of  a  judgment  con- 
cerning musical  identities  or  origins.  It  is  necessary 
that  the  exact  case  taken  by  Dr.  Flood  should  now  be. 
investigated. 

Comparison  of  "Bumper"  with  "Anacreon" 

As  already  stated,  the  only  argument  of  apparent  value 
advanced  by  Dr.  Flood  for  the  Irish  origin  of  the  air  of 
our  national  anthem  is  the  one  he  bases  on  musical 
"characteristics,"  for  the  melody  of  "Anacreon"  has,  he 
declares,  "all  the  characteristics"  of  O'Carolan's  "Bum- 
per, 'Squire  Jones."  He  invites  his  readers  to  make  the 
comparison,  assuring  them  that  the  truth  of  his  assertion 
"can  easily  be  tested"  in  this  way.  The  test  is  not. 
however,  quite  so  easily  made,  for  the  readers  must 
catch  their  hare  first — must  first  of  all  find  O'Carolan's 
air — and  then  must  proceed  to  cook  it,  as  it  were,  in  the 
same  pot  with  "Anacreon."  * 

To  facilitate  for  them  the  process  of  comparison,  I 
have  transposed  "Anacreon"  from  the  key  of  C  into  the 
"Bumper"  key  of  B-flat,  and  have  turned  its  6-4  time 
into  the  6-8  time  of  "Bumper."  Something  is  lost  to 
my  demonstration  of  the  dissimilarity  between  the  two 
airs   by   this    change   in  the  apparent   rhythm  of  "Ana- 

1 1  have  said  that  they  must  first  catch  their  hare.  But  this  is  not 
enough;  for  they  must  be  sure  that  the  hare  they  catch  is  the  right  one. 
For  instance,  O'Neill's  fine  collection,  the  Music  of  Ireland  (No.  639), 
regularizes  the  rhythm  (a  most  important  point  in  comparing  or  con- 
trasting the  melodies  of  "  Anacreon  "  and  "  Bumper,"  as  we  shall  see) 
of  "  Bumper,"  by  adding  a  whole  measure.  Baron  Dawson's  "  Imi- 
tation "  of  the  original  Celtic  text  of  O'Carolan  could  not  be  adapted 
to  this  modernization  of  the  old  air  except  by  undue  repetition  of  the 
initial  words.  In  addition,  the  musical  phrasing  is  badly  disturbed  by 
the  location  of  the  new  measure. 


304  American   Catholic  Historical  Society 

creon  " — this  change  of  quarter  notes  into  eighth  notes; 
for  the  tendency  is  a  natural  (although  not,  it  is  true,  a 
necessary)  one,  to  sing  6-8  faster  than  6-4  time,  and  to 
give  "Anacreon"  something  of  the  rollicking  gait  of 
"Bumper."  We  are  thus  tempted  to  turn  what  may 
have  been  a  fairly  slow  or  at  least  a  fairly  moderate 
tempo  of  "Anacreon"  into  what  was  most  probably  a 
fairly  fast  tempo  of  "Bumper."  But  if  the  comparison  is 
to  be  made  with  ease  and  some  approximation  to  accu- 
racy, the  change  of  "  Anacreon"  to  the  same  key  and  the 
same  apparent  rhythm  as  those  of  "Bumper"  is  almost 
a  necessity.1 

My  readers  are  now  invited  to  make  the  comparison 
desired  by  Dr.  Flood.  The  upper  staves  give  the  air  of 
O'Carolan's  song;  the  lower  staves  give  the  air  of  "To 
Anacreon  in  Heaven."  Dr.  Flood  assures  us  that  the 
latter  melody  "has  all  the  characteristics"  of  the  former. 
A  glance  at  the  first  three  notes  of  "Bumper"  may 
superficially  remind  us  of  the  first  three  notes  of  our 
national  anthem  (as  it  is  sometimes  played),  and  this 
fact  may  have  suggested  to  Dr.  Flood  his  conception  of 
the  similarity  between  the  two  airs.  But  even  this  simi- 
larity is  in  reality  only  superficial  and  appeals  only  to 
the  eye,  for  the  ear  will  immediately  recognize  that  in 
point  of  rhythm  the  first  three  notes  disagree  thoroughly, 
the  second  note  of  "Bumper"  receiving  the  musical  ac- 
cent of  the  measure,  while  the  third  note  of  the  "  Star- 
Spangled  Banner"  receives  that  most  important  musical 

1  In  the  interests  of  brevity,  I  have  condensed  the  title  of  O'Carolan's 
air  to  "Bumper,"  without  pretending  to  reflect  on  Dr.  Flood's  title. 
In  his  admirable  volume  on  Irish  Folk  Music,  O'Neill  calls  it  "  Bumpers 
Esquire  Jones,"  and  remarks  that  in  The  Hibernian  Muse  the  title  is 
modified  into  "  Bumper  'Squire  Jones,"  and  that  it  was  thus  given  in 
a  collection  of  O'Carolan's  airs  in  1780,  and  has  ever  since  been  so 
styled  in  print. 


The  Air  of  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  "         305 

accent.  However,  the  comparison  we  are  to  make  is  not 
between  these  two  airs,  but  between  the  air  of  "  Bumper  " 
and  that  of  "Anacreon"  (whose  initial  notes  have  not 
even  a  superficial  resemblance  to  the  initial  notes  of 
"Bumper").     This  is  a  fact  to  be  borne  in  mind. 

If  my  readers  will  play  or  sing  the  lower  staves  first  of 
all,  they  will  find  substantially  the  melody  of  our  national 
anthem,  but  will  not  find  the  initial  descending  notes  of 
the  "  Star  Spangled  Banner" — a  fact  of  which  once  more 
I  beg  to  remind  them.  Having  done  this,  let  them 
(with  whatever  force  of  prepossession  and  association  of 
ideas  Dr.  Flood's  view  may  have  upon  their  imagina- 
tions) play  the  upper  staves  throughout.  Or,  if  they 
prefer,  let  them  reverse  the  process,  and  play  first  of  all 
the  upper  staves,  and  then  the  lower  staves.  Will  they 
notice  even  the  slightest  resemblance  between  the  two 
airs  ?  Do  these  two  airs  appear  to  have  any  character- 
istics in  common,  however  sturdily  Dr.  Flood  may 
assert  that  that  they  have  "all  the  characteristics"  in 
common? 

Roughly  speaking,  they  have  indeed  the  same  rhythm 
(innumerable  melodies  have  the  same  rhythm,  and  the 
rhythm  cannot  therefore  be  considered,  in  such  cases,  as 
a  "  characteristic,"  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  becomes 
so  trite  as  to  lose  every  element  of  a  "characteristic"). 
And  yet,  in  this  very  question  of  rhythm,  we  immediately 
find  a  strikingly  characteristic  differentiation  between 
"  Anacreon "  and  "Bumper."  O'Carolan's  air  lacks  a 
whole  measure  (namely  the  one  I  have  marked  "8") 
and  is,  because  of  this  omission,  "irregular"  in  rhythm, 
while  the  air  of  "  Anacreon  "  is  "  regular."  Here  the  re- 
mark of  Douglas  Hyde  (s.  v.  "  O'Carolan  "  in  the  Cath- 
olic Eiicy  dope  dia)  is  of  importance  :  "His  (O'Carolan's) 
poems  are  full  of  curious  twists  and  turns  of  metre  to 
suit  his  airs,  to  which  they  are  admirably  wed,  and  very 


306  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

few  are  in  regular  stanzas."1  Even  apart,  therefore,  from 
any  comparison  with  "Bumper,"  we  should  prima  facie 
declare  that  "  Anacreon  "  is  most  probably  not  Carolan- 
ian.  for  the  reason  that  it  lacks  the  usual  characteristic  of 
Carolan's  airs — irregularity  of  rhythm. 

The  only  characteristic  in  which  "Bumper"  and  "An- 
ancreon"  agree  is  the  apparently  perfect  agreement  to 
disagree  perfectly ;  for  where  one  melody  ascends,  the 
other  descends,  and  vice  z'ersa.  This  agreement  to 
agree  begins  with  the  very  first  notes  and  continues 
throughout  to  the  end.  except  in  the  first  half  of  the 
eleventh  bar.  So  true  is  this  that  if  the  reader  looks  at 
any  two  connected  staves,  he  will  fancy  that  he  is  gazing 
at  an  illustration  of  scholastic  counterpoint  in  contrary 
motion.  If  he  should  have  a  very  literal  mind,  he  will 
gravely  count  the  notes  on  which  the  two  melodies  agree 
as  they  pass  each  other,  and  will  not  be  surprised  that 
they  are  so  very  few  in  number.  The  "Anacreon"  air 
has  one  hundred  notes,  and  only  seven  of  these  coincide 
with  notes  in  O'Carolan's  air.  Seven  per  cent  is  not  a 
notable  agreement. 

The  eighth-notes  in  "Anacreon"  are  liberally  inter- 
spersed with  sixteenths  and  quarters  and  dotted  eighths, 
and  the  result  is  that  we  have  really  a  song  of  some  dig- 
nity of  rhythm;  while  the  air  of  O'Carolan's  "Bumper." 
with  its  overwhelming  proportion  of  eighth-notes,  re- 
minds us  of  that  form  of  dance  known  as  a  reel.  And 
in  this  fact  is  discovered  another  point  of  characteristic 
disagreement  of  the  two  melodies. 

Speaking  of  reels  reminds  me  that  another  test  ma; 
made  of  this  question  of  "characteristics."     Play  O'Car- 

1  Petrie  had  already  called  attention  to  this  peculiarity  in  his  Ancient 
Music  of  Ireland  when  noting  (I,  p.  39)  that  the  planxty  "  Lady 
Wrixon  "  has  "no  inequalities  in  the  time  of  the  parts,"  and  also  in 
his  comment  on  the  planxty  "  O'Flynn  "  (I.  p.  149). 


The  Air  of  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  "         307 

olan's  air  for  anybody  who  has  not  read  the  present  dis- 
cussion, and  ask  him  (or  her)  if  it  suggests  any  other 
known  melody.  Everybody  knows  the  melody  of  "  The 
Star-Spangled  Banner,"  but  I  venture  to  predict  that 
nobody  will  find  this  air  suggested  by  O'Carolan's.  I 
will  also  venture  to  predict  that  any  person  who  knows 
the  so-called  "Virginia  Reel"  (7.  e.y  "The  Irish  Washer- 
woman") will  discover  in  it  the  res  signata  by  the 
"Bumper,  'Squire  Jones." 

The  fact  is  that  the  only  apparent  agreement  in  char- 
acteristics is  in  that  of  rhythm,  and  even  here,  as  I  have 
shown,  the  agreement  is  far  from  exact,  and  the  inexact- 
ness is  a  characteristic  of  O'Carolan's  muse,  but  not  of 
the  "Anacreon."  A  closer  agreement  in  rhythm  might 
be  found  in  many  other  airs. 

Having  thus  made  the  comparison  in  the  most  obvious 
way,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  Dr.  Flood  did  not  contem- 
plate such  a  parallel  method.  Perhaps  he  had  in  mind 
that  (as  illustrated  in  measure  9)  both  melodies  suddenly 
rise  from  a  low  to  a  very  high  note.  This  is  true,  but 
can  be  paralleled  in  various  old  Irish,  Scotch,  English, 
Welsh  melodies.     It  is  not  a  "characteristic." 

But  the  two  compared  (contrasted  would  be  a  better 
word)  melodies  really  differ  in  almost  everything  that 
can  bear  the  name  of  "  characteristic."  They  have  char- 
acteristically different  openings;  for  "Bumper"  descends 
and  remains  for  a  brief  time  on  the  low  ground  thus 
reached,  while  "  Anacreon  "  leaps  up  with  vigor  from  that 
low  ground  to  higher  altitudes  with  rapid  bounds.  They 
have  also  characteristically  different  endings ;  for  the 
thrice-repeated  tonic  (found  four  times  in  the  cadences 
of  "Bumper")  cannot  be  found  even  once  in  "Ana- 
creon " — and  the  triple  repetition  of  the  tonic  in  the  final 
cadence  is,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Flood  in  his  History  of  Irish 
Music,  one  of   the   characteristics  of  old  Irish  melody. 


308  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

They  differ  characteristically  in  rhythm,  as  has  already 
been  pointed  out.  They  differ  characteristically  in  length 
— for  ''Bumper"  has  one  measure  less  than  "  Anacreon." 
They  differ  in  spirit;  for  "Bumper"  is  convivial,  while 
"Anacreon"  (although  indeed  formerly  used  as  a  con- 
vivial song)  is  really  (as  the  immortality  it  has  achieved 
as  our  national  anthem  demonstrates)  martial  in  senti- 
ment. They  differ  in  melodic  movement;  for  where 
"Bumper"  ascends,  "Anacreon"  descends — and  vice  versa. 
They  differ  in  phrasing,  as  any  musician  will  readily  per- 
ceive, although  it  is  not  within  our  scope  to  illustrate 
the  fact  here.  Summing  up  the  whole  matter  briefly, 
we  find  that  the  two  melodies  differ  in  their  beginnings 
and  in  their  endings  and  in  the  whole  melodic  move- 
ment between  these  two  boundaries ;  they  differ  also  in 
their  rhythm,  their  length,  their  spirit,  their  phrasing. 
In  what  that  can  fairly  be  styled  a  characteristic  do  they 
agree?  How,  then,  can  Dr.  Flood  say  that  the  air  of 
"Anacreon"  "has  all  the  characteristics"  of  that  of 
"Bumper"? 

The  comparison  of  the  tunes  of  "Bumper"  and  "An- 
acreon" makes  the  contention  of  Dr.  Flood  unacceptable 
to  us.  If  "Bumper "is  characteristically  Irish,  then  its 
antithesis,  "Anacreon,"  must  be  characteristically  non- 
Irish.  But  the  matter  is  even  more  curious  than  this. 
After  I  had  transcribed  the  "Bumper"  song  from  an 
antique  volume  of  music,  I  chanced  to  look  over  the 
chapter  on  disputed  ascriptions  in  O'Neill's  Irish  Folk 
Music,  and  there  learned  that — mirabile  dictu! — the  tune 
of  "Bumper"  had  been  adjudged  English  by  Burk  Thu- 
moth  (who  in  1720  published  the  first  collection  of  Irish 
airs),  who  placed  it  among  the  "Twelve  English  Airs" 
in  his  second  volume.  Hereupon  O'Neill  remarks  that 
the  air  is  duly  accredited  to  O'Carolan  in  The  Hibernian 
Muse,  "  the  editor  of  which  in  this  instance  ventured  to 
doubt  Thumoth's  infallibility."     Can  humor  farther  go? 


The  Air  of  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  "         309 

3.  Ratio  Convenient^ 

His  [O'Carolan's]  fine  melody  known  as  the  "  Arethusa " 
was  appropriated  by  the  English,  and  was  included  for  over 
a  century  asa"  fine  old  English  melody,"  until  I  disproved 
the  ascription  and  showed  its  rightful  provenance. 

I  trust  that  I  have  understood  this  assertion  properly 
in  considering  it  not  as  an  argument,  in  the  strict  sense, 
or  as  a  proof,  but  as  what  I  have  ventured  to  style  it, 
namely,  a  ratio  convenientice — that  is,  something  that 
conciliates  attention  to  an  argument  by  removing  mis- 
conceptions, disarming  prejudices,  and  changing  wrong 
a  priori  standpoints,  as  well  as  by  showing  the  ante- 
cedent probability  of  the  arguments  a  writer  may  bring 
forth  in  support  of  a  position. 

When  identifying  the  air  of  "Yankee  Doodle"  (in 
The  Dolphin,  loc.  cit.)  with  that  of  "  All  the  Way  to  Gal- 
way,"  Dr.  Flood  used  a  similar  ratio  convenienticz,  de- 
claring : 

Other  airs  of  the  same  period  [sc.  1750],  like  "Ally  Croker," 
"The  Rakes  of  Mallow,"  "The  Pretty  Girl  of  Derby,"  have 
been  claimed  as  English,  though  undoubtedly  Irish,  and  there 
is  not  a  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  the  English  annexation  of 
numerous  Irish  airs  of  the  Jacobite  period.  Even  a  recent 
collection  includes  "The  Arethusa"  and  "Nancy  Dawson" 
as  "  old  English  airs,"  in  sublime  disregard  of  their  unques- 
tionable Irish  origin. 

In  this  extract  we  again  meet  with  pronounced  con- 
victions expressed  in  the  words  "  not  a  shadow  of 
doubt,"  "undoubtedly,"  "unquestionable."  Assuming 
that  they  are  justified  by  the  facts  of  the  case,  the  value 
of  the  ratio  convenientics  might  be  summed  up  by  say- 
ing that  there  is  no  inherent  improbability  in  the  view 
that  the  tune  of  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven"  was  really 


310  lerican  Catholic  Historical  Society 

borrowed  from  Ireland.  It  would  hardly  be  justifiable 
to  go  further  than  this,  and  to  contend  for  a  probability 
that  the  tune  was  in  fact  taken  thence. 

Such  a  probability  might  indeed  be  constructed,  if  the 
habit  of  borrowing  were  all  on  one  side ;  that  is,  if  many 
reputedly  English  airs  could  "unquestionably"  be  as- 
cribed to  Irish  sources,  and  if  no  reputedly  Irish  airs 
could  similarly  be  referred  "without  a  shadow  of  doubt" 
to  English  or  other  sources.  Let  us,  then,  hear  the 
other  side. 

In  his  Song  Book  (London,  1866),  John  Hullah  re- 
cords a  number  of  instances  of  what  he  considers  Eng- 
lish airs  masquerading  as  of  Irish  origin  : 

(a)  Hullah  thinks  that  Chappell  "has  thoroughly  dis- 
posed of  the  Irish  claim  "  to  the  melody  of  Moore's,  "  As 
Slow  Our  Ship  "  (English  :  "  The  Girl  I  Left  Behind  Me  ") , 
adding  that  "The  termination  of  'As  Slow  Our  Ship'  in 
the  Irish  Melodies  is  doubtless  Moore's  own." 

(b)  Moore  refers  the  melody  of  "Believe  Me  if  All 
Those  Endearing  Young  Charms"  to  the  song,  "  My 
Lodging  it  is  On  the  Cold  Ground."  This  latter  song 
is  given  by  Hullah,  who  remarks  ironically  on  it :  "  An- 
other '  Irish  Melody,'  undoubtedly  of  English  origin. 
The  writer  of  '  Believe  Me  if  All  Those  Endearing  Young 
Charms  '  may,  however,  be  pardoned  his  abduction,  in 
consideration  of  the  immortal  verse  to  which  he  has  mar- 
ried the  music  he  ran  away  with." 

(c)  Hullah  declares  that  the  melody  of  the  song, 
"  Shepherds,  I  Have  Lost  My  Love,"  is  the  melody  "  to 
which  Moore  has  adapted  his  elegant  '  When  Through 
Life  Unblest  We  Rove.'  There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt 
its  English  origin." 

(d)  Of  Moore's  "  Oh  !  Could  We  Do  With  This  World 
of  Ours,"  Hullah  says:  "Another  of  the  'Irish  mel- 
odies,' entitled  by  Moore  Basket  of  Oysters.     *  It  has  been 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner "         311 

a  favorite  tune,'   says   Mr.   Chappell,  'from  the  time  of 
Elizabeth  to  the  present  day.'  " 

(e)  Moore's  Song  of  the  Battle-Eve  ("Tomorrow, 
comrade,  we")  has  the  melody  of  the  Cruiskeen  Lawn 
and  of  "John  Anderson  My  Jo."  Hullah  says:  "Mr. 
Chappell  regards  this  beautiful  melody  as  a  '  mere  modi- 
fication of  the  English  tune  '  "  I  Am  the  Duke  of  Norfolk," 
which  '  has  remained  in  constant  and  popular  use  from 
the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  down  to 
the  present  time/  Moore  has  included  it,  modified  as 
usual,  in  his  Irish  Melodies,  under  the  name  of  Cruiskeen 
Law7t.  Whatever  be  its  origin  or  date,  its  interest  and 
popularity  are  due  entirely  to  the  words,  with  which  it  is 
now  universally  associated.  By  right  of  conquest,  at 
least,  it  is  a  Scottish  song."  ■ 

(f)  "Chappell  has  called  attention  to  the  resemblance 
which  this  tune  [  Moore's  "  Rich  and  rare  were  the  gems 
she  wore"]  and  even  its  original  words,  bear  to  the  cele- 
brated English  canon  '  Sumer  is  y-comin  in'"  (c.  1216). 

Into  the  correctness  of  the  above  ascriptions  of  tunes 
it  is  not  really  necessary  for  us  to  enter  here.  Whether 
the  statements  be  objectively  correct  or  not,  they  are 
made  with  equal  confidence — and  from  an  equally  accept- 
able source — with  those  of  Dr.  Flood.  They  indicate 
what  is     probably   a    very   common   thing  in    the    long 

1  Apropos  of  "characteristics"  and  the  hostile  national  claims  based 
on  them,  it  is  interesting  to  find  the  eminent  Dr.  Stokes  (who  loved 
his  Ireland  dearly)  ascribing  the  air  of  the  Cruiskeen  Lawn  to  Danish 
sources  in  his  Life  of  George  Petrie  (p.  311):  "A  few  Danish  airs  are 
to  be  met  with  in  Scotland,  as  in  Ireland  .  .  .  while  among  the  airs  of 
Ireland,  'The  Cruiskeen  Laun,'  is  a  known  example  of  a  Danish  war- 
like song,  or  a  march.     When  played  in  march  time,  all  character  of  a 
drinking  song  disappears;  and  Moore,  in  giving  his  words — 
'  To-morrow,  comrades,  we 
On  the  battle-field  must  be,' 
to  this  air,  seems  to  have  recognized  its  nature." 


312  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

history  of  music —  namely,  mutual  borrowings,  the  initial 
one  of  which  is,  in  some  cases,  lost  in  the  twilight  of 
musical  and  national  history.  They  also  indicate  that  an 
argument  from  "similarities"  or  "  characteristics  "  has 
not  a  very  compelling  force.  In  view  of  these  quoted 
statements,  it  seems  pretty  clear  that  the  ratio  conveni- 
enticB,  when  confronted  with  the  "other  side"  of  the 
question,  has  also  lost  much  of  its  conciliatory  force. 
We  should  rejoice  to  know  that  the  tune  of  "  The 
Star-Spangled  Banner"  was  of  Irish  origin.  Why,  then, 
have  we  taken  the  trouble  to  investigate  the  value  of  the 
reasoning?  Why  not  accept  as  a  fact  what  would  natur- 
ally please  us  so  much?  Well,  for  one  thing,  the  shade 
of  our  own  Martin  I.  J.  Griffin  stands  in  our  pathway  to 
this  delectable  goal.  He  seemed  always  to  prefer  truth — 
or  such  a  modicum  of  truth  as  human  patience  could  at- 
tain to  in  American  Catholic  History — to  any  preconcep- 
tion, however  pleasant  it  might  be.  For  another  thing, 
the  very  readable,  well-condensed  summary  in  America, 
of  the  paper  contributed  by  Dr.  Flood  to  the  Ave  Maria , 
lends  itself  readily  to  quotation  by  our  Catholic  press; 
and  thus  a  legend  may  grow  up  to  whose  exact  correct- 
ness we  should  probably  lend  too  ready  an  assent,  only 
to  find  later — mayhap — that  the  defence  of  the  legend  is 
not  quite  as  easy  as  its  repetition. 

The  Negative  Argument 

I  think  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  tune  has 
been  simplified  by  elimination  of  the  Irish  claim  (so  far, 
of  course,  as  that  claim  rests  on  the  bases  furnished  by 
Dr.  Flood's  article).  We  are  now  able  to  consider  the 
effect  of  Mr.  Blake's  discovery  on  the  commonly  accepted 
view  that  Smith  is  the  author.  In  rejecting  this  view 
(which  had  in  1909  been  held  by  him)  Dr.  Flood  writes: 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner"        313 

In  order  to  bolster  up  Stafford  Smith's  claim  as  a  composer 
of  the  tune,  Chappell  and  his  copyists  give  the  date  of  his 
11  Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets  "  as  "  1780  or  1785."  Fortunately 
for  historical  accuracy,  a  wealthy  Irish-American,  Mr.  John 
Henry  Blake,  went  to  the  Copyright  Office,  Stationers'  Hall, 
London,  and  searched  the  record  indexes  of  the  copyright 
department  from  1746  to  1799  inclusively,  with  the  result  that 
he  discovered  the  actual  date  on  which  Smith  entered  the 
copyright — namely,  May  14,  1799. 

Dr.  Flood  is  very  severe  on  "  Chappell  and  his  copy- 
ists" who  attempted  to  "  bolster  up"  Smith's  claim  by 
assigning  too  early  a  date  for  his  volume.  But  as  late  as 
1909  Dr.  Flood  himself  wrote  in  Church  Music : 

The  most  decisive  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  tune  was  com- 
posed by  Smith  is  the  fact  that  he  includes  it  in  his  Fifth  Col- 
lection of  Canzonets,  Catches,  etc.,  in  1 78 1. 

Shall  we  reckon  Dr.  Flood  among  the  "  copyists"  who 
attempted  to  "  bolster  up"  Smith's  claim  by  assigning  a 
date  for  his  volume  at  least  eighteen  years  before  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  volume? 

It  will  be  convenient  to  divide  our  discussion  of  the 
"Negative  Argument"  into  four  parts  suggested  by  Dr. 
Flood's  treatment  of  the  question:  1.  The  Discovery  of 
the  True  Date  of  Smith's  Copyright;  2.  Smith  Arranged 
the  Tune  as  a  Glee;  3.  Smith  "Never  Claimed  the  Tune 
as  His  "  ;  4.  The  Authorship  of  the  Words. 

1.  Discovery  of  the  True  Date  of  Copyright. 

To  understand  the  significance  of  Mr.  Blake's  discovery 
of  the  date  of  copyright  of  the  Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets, 
etc.,  the  following  historical  details  or  assertions  may  be 
briefly  given.  And  first  of  all,  as  to  the  Anacreontic 
Society.  In  his  Musical  Memoirs  (1830)  W.  T.  Parke 
wrote  under  the  year  1786: 


314  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

This  season  I  became  an  honorary  member  of  the  Anacreontic 
Society,  and  at  the  first  meeting-  played  a  concerto  on  the 
oboe,  as  did  Cramer  on  the  violin.  The  assemblage  of  sub- 
scribers was  as  usual  very  numerous,  amongst  whom  were 
several  noblemen  and  gentlemen  of  the  first  distinction.  Sir 
Richard  Hankey  (the  banker)  was  the  chairman.  .  .  .  The 
meetings  were  held  in  the  great  ball-room  of  the  Crown  and 
Anchor  Tavern  in  the  Strand,  once  a  fortnight  during  the 
season,  and  the  entertainments  of  the  evening  consisted  of  a 
grand  concert,  in  which  all  the  flower  of  the  musical  profes- 
sion assisted  as  honorary  members.  After  the  concert  an 
elegant  supper  was  served  up;  and  when  the  cloth  was  re- 
moved, the  constitutional  song,  beginning,  ''To  Anacreon  in 
Heaven,"  was  sung  by  the  chairman  or  his  deputy.  This 
was  followed  by  songs  in  all  the  varied  styles,  by  theatrical 
singers  and  the  members,  and  catches  and  glees  were  given 
by  some  of  the  first  vocalists  in  the  kingdom. 

Parke  goes  on  to  relate  that  the  Duchess  of  Devonshire, 
"the  great  leader  of  the  haut  ton,  having  heard  the  Ana- 
creontic [that  is,  the  song  'To  Anacreon  in  Heaven'] 
highly  extolled,"  wished  to  hear  it  (privately)  sung  at 
the  concert,  and  a  lattice-work  was  put  up  to  allow  her 
and  her  accompanying  ladies  to  attend  without  being 
seen.  He  goes  on  to  say  that  "  some  of  the  comic  songs 
not  being  exactly  calculated  for  the  entertainment  of  the 
ladies,  the  singers  were  restrained ;  which  displeasing 
many  of  the  members,  they  resigned  one  after  another; 
and  a  general  meeting  being  called,  the  society  was  dis- 
solved." 

The  dissolution,  however,  did  not  occur  in  1786,  but 
sometime  later.  Neither  is  the  date  of  the  foundation 
of  the  society  certain,  "and  therefore  it  is  a  somewhat 
open  question  since  when  k  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven ' 
can  have  been  sung  as  the  'constitutional'  song  of 
this    society".      Thus     Mr.    Sonneck     {Report,    p.    20), 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner"         315 

who  quotes  from  Dr.  Flood's  "  Notes  "  the  statement 
that  "The  words  and  music  of  'To  Anacreon '  were 
published  by  Longman  and  Broderip  in  1 779-1 790,  and 
were  reprinted  by  Anne  Lee  of  Dublin  (?i78o)  in  1781. . ."; 
follows  on  with  a  statement  from  a  letter  to  him  written 
by  Mr.  William  Barclay  Squire  (21  Sept.,  1908)  that 
both  publications  "  are  about  1780,  but  it  is  quite  impos- 
sible to  tell  the  exact  dates",  [italics  mine]  and  gives  the 
titles  of  the  Longman  and  Broderip  edition  (transcribed 
by  Chappell  for  Notes  and  Queries  in  1873): 

The  Anacreontic  Song,  as  sung  at  the  Crown  and  Anchor 
Tavern  in  the  Strand,  the  words  by  Ralph  Tomlinson,  Esq.. 
late  President  of  that  Society.  .  .  . 

Dr.  W.  H.  Cummings,  the  distinguished  English  scholar, 
wrote  to  Mr.  Sonneck  (7  Nov.,  1908): 

I  had  a  copy  of  Smiths  "To  x\nacreon  in  Heaven''  pub. 
[lished]  in  1771,  but  cannot  now  find  it.  I  have  two  copies 
of  a  little  later  date.     The  first  named  was  a  single  sheet  song. 

Mr.  Sonneck  comments: 

Doctor  Cummings  evidently  was  not  willing  to  commit  his 
memory  under  the  circumstances  on  the  point  of  imprint,  nor 
does  he  make  it  clear  whether  or  no  Smith's  name  appeared 
on  the  sheet  song  as  that  of  the  composer.  Assuming  that 
Doctor  Cummings  had  every  solid  reason  to  date  this,  the 
earliest  known  issue,  of  "To  Anacreon,"  1771,  it  follows  that 
words  and  music  must  have  been  written  at  the  latest  in  1771 
and  at  the  earliest  in  the  year  of  the  foundation'of  the  "  Anac- 
reontic Society,"  which  is  unfortunately  unknown.  .  .  .  About 
1780  Ralph  Tomlinson,  esq.,  appears  in  the  Longman  & 
Broderip  edition,  as  the  "late  President  of  the  Society,"  and 
no  other  gentleman  has  yet  been  found  to  have  preceded  him 
in  the  chair. 


316  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

The  song — with  or  without  music — appeared  as  follows 
(abbreviated  from  Sonneck's  Report): 

1771  (?)  (Dr.  Cummings'  sheet); 
1778  (words  only,  in  Vocal  Magazine  etc.,  London); 
1780  {circa)  (words  and  tune,  Longman  &  Broderip,  Lon- 
don, and  reprint  by  Anne  Lee,  Dublin); 

1783  (words  and  music  in  Vocal  Enchantress,  London); 
1788  (in  Calliope;  or,  the  Musical  Miscellany ,  London); 
1792  (in  Edinburgh  Musical  Miscellany  Edinburgh); 
1797  (in  Vocal  Magazine,  Edinburgh); 
1796  (as  a  Masonic  Ode,  Dublin); 
1802  (2nd  edition  of  Masonic  Ode). 

Mr.  Sonneck  comments  : 

The  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  insertion  of  "To  Anac- 
reon  in  Heaven"  in  the  quoted  collections,  not  to  mention 
many  later  collections,  is  plain.  As  those  collections  were 
among  the  most  important  and  most  popular  of  the  time, 
"To  Anacreon  in  Heaven"  must  have  been  familiar  to  all 
convivial  souls  in  the  British  Isles  toward  1800.  Now  it  is 
fact  that  with  the  exception  of  that  mysterious  sheet  of  1771. 
not  one  of  these  publications  alludes  to  the  composer  of  the 
tune.  It  was  not  a  rule  to  do  so  in  miscellaneous  collections, 
yet  it  is  a  curious  fact  that,  while  contrary  to  custom, 
Stewart's  Vocal  Magazine,  1797,  mentions  in  a  separate  index 
the  composers  of  many  of  the  airs,  it  leaves  "  To  Anacreon 
in  Heaven  "  without  a  composer.  Possibly  the  editor  doubted 
the  now  generally  accepted  authorship  of  John  Stafford  Smith, 
or  he  was  still  unaware  of  the  peculiar  form  of  entry  (men- 
tioned by  William  Chappell  as  early  as  1873!)  of  "  To  Anac- 
reon in  Heaven  "  in: 

The  fifth  book  of  canzonets,  catches,  canons  and  glees, 
sprightly  and  plaintive  with  a  part  for  the  pianoforte  suhjoined 
where  necessary  to  melodize  the  score;  dedicated  by  permis- 
sion to  Viscount  Dudley  and  Ward,  by  John  Stafford  Smith, 
Gent,  of  His  Majesty's  Chapels  Royal,  author  of  the  favorite 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner"        317 

glees,  Blest  pair  of  Syrens,  Hark  the  hollow  woods,  etc.  The 
Anacreontic,  and  other  popular  songs.  Printed  for  the 
author.  .  .  . 

This  collection  was  published  between  1780  and  1790,  the 
exact  date  being  unknown. 

This  "fifth  book  of  canzonets ",  then,  is  the  book 
whose  date  of  copyright  was  found  (in  October,  1910) 
by  Mr.  John  Henry  Blake,  an  American,  after  a  search 
in  the  records  of  Stationers'  Hall,  London,  from  the  dates 
1 746- 1 799.  He  located  the  copyright  entry  of  the  Fifth 
Book  of  Canzonets  as  8  May,  1799,  and  notes  a  misprint 
of  the  title  (as  given  above  by  Mr.  Sonneck)  of  which 
he  furnishes  a  photographic  facsimile  in  his  monograph. 
The  period-mark  placed  before  "The  Anacreontic,  and 
other  popular  songs  ",  should  be  a  comma,  and  the  word 
"  The  "  should  begin  with  a  small  letter — thus  associating, 
Mr.  Blake  argues,  the  Anacreontic,  not  with  "  other  pop- 
ular songs  ",  but  with  the  previously  mentioned  "  glees  ". 
Mr.  Blake  elevates  into  a  point  of  capital  importance  what 
is  merely  a  printer's  error.1 

1  As  I  shall  have  to  pass  severe  criticism  on  some  of  the  statements  of 
Dr.  Flood,  I  take  occasion  of  this  printer's  error  to  felicitate  Dr.  Flood 
on  his  discernment  (which  becomes,  indeed,  the  usual  possession  of 
anyone  who  publishes  much  and  knows  how  easily  a  printer  may  make 
mistakes)  in  not  following  Mr.  Blake's  lead  here.  Mr.  Blake's  very 
argument  may  be  neatly  turned  against  himself.  Mr.  Sonneck,  in 
letters  to  me  dated  October  18  and  27,  1913,  does  this  in  the  following 
manner : 

"Mr.  Blake  is  correct  in  strting  that  in  my  transcript  of  the  title  of 
Smith's  'Fifth  Book'  there  is  an  error.  It  should  be  '  author  of  the 
favorite  glees  .  .  .  Hark  the  hollow  woods,  etc.  the  Anacreontic,  and 
other  popular  songs,'  and  not  'woods,  etc.  The  Anacreontic  .  .  .' 
(the  printer  did  not  follow  copy  but  followed  office  rules  in  using  a 
capital  letter  after  a  period  sign,  and  when  reading  proof  under  pressure 
of  other  business  I  overlooked  the  error).  Mr.  Blake  waxes  enthu- 
siastic over  this  discovery,  claiming  that  Smith  by  using  the  lower  case 
letter  in  'the,'  included  'the  Anacreontic'  among  his  aforesaid  glees 
composed  by  him  and  not  among  his  'popular  songs.'     Therefore,  as 


318  crican  Catholic  Historical  Society 

Having  identified  thus  the  volume  whose  copyright  un- 
discovered by  Mr.  Blake,  we  have  arrived  at  a  point  where 
three  observations  may  well  be  made  on  the  account  which 
Mr.  Sonneck  gives  us  in  his  Report.  First  of  all,  we  notice 
the  critical  care  displayed  by  him  in  not  committing  him- 
self to  any  inference  wider  than  his  premises — namely,  the 
assertions  made  by  prominent  musical  antiquaries — and 
his  avoidance  of  partisanship  where  their  statements  assert 
boldly,  moderately,  or  hesitatingly.  Secondly,  we  notice 
his  cautious  attitude  towards  the  prevailing  ascription  of 
the  tune  to  Smith — a  fact  of  importance  to  remember,  in 
view  of  the  tone  of  Dr.  Flood's  article.  Thirdly,  we 
notice  the  dates  between  which  (1780  to  1790)  Mr.  Son- 
neck  would  place  the  publication  of  Smith's  Fifth  Book, 
etc.  Mr.  Blake's  long  search  has  since  resulted  in  finding 
the  exact  date,  1799.  Dr.  Flood,  indebted  (like  everyone 
else)  to  Mr.  Blake  for  this  information,  assails  "  Chappell 
and  his  copyists  "  for  an  attempt  to  "  bolster  up  "  Smith's 
claim  to  the  authorship  of  the  tune  by  assigning  the  date 
of  the  publication  of  the  Fifth  Book,  etc.,  as  "  1780  or 
1785  ".  And  yet  Dr.  Flood  had  himself  assigned,  in  the 
year  1909,  the  date  of  publication  of  this  Fifth  Book  as 
'  1 78 1  ".  If  any  stones  are  to  be  thrown,  assuredly  those 
who  throw  them  should  not  live  in  glass  houses.  However. 
it   was   wholly   unnecessary   to   throw   any   stones   at   all. 

'To  Anacreon  in  Heaven'  first  appeared  as  a  song,  not  as  a  glee. 
Smith  himself  did  not  claim  to  have  composed  it,  etc.  All  nonsense, 
of  course,  but  it  is  this  kind  of  nonsense  which  one  has  to  combat. 
The  very  fact,  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  title  reads  '  etc.  the'  shows  that 
'  the  Anacreontic  '  belongs  grammatically  to  '  and  other  popular  songs ' 
and  that  '  the  Anacreontic '  was  meant  as  a  '  song  ; '  and  the  word 
'other,'  it  further  seems  to  me,  compels  this  interpretation.  And 
again  Mr.  Blake  breaks  down  under  his  own  information,  because,  as 
if  the  Registrar  wished  to  make  the  point  raised  by  me  above,  perfectly 
clear,  he  transcribed  Smith's  copyright  certificate  for  Mr.  Blake  as 
follows:  'the  Hollow  Woods,  etc.,  The  Anacreontic,  and  other  popular 
songs.'  " 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner"        319 

Where  one  has  not  exact  information,  one  is  compelled  to 
figure  as  closely  as  he  may  from  what  are  currently  es- 
teemed the  probabilities  in  the  case. 

2.  Smith  Arranged  the  Air  as  a  Glee. 

Continuing  the  narrative  of  Blake's  discoveries,  Dr. 
Flood  writes  in  the  Ave  Maria : 

He  also  found  indisputable  evidence  that  Smith  merely 
arranged  the  tune  in  the  form  of  a  "  glee,"  and  that  he  did 
not  claim  any  copyright  for  the  tune. 

The  "  indisputable  evidence "  seems  to  have  been  the 
fact  that  Smith,  in  his  Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets  (copy- 
righted May  8,  1799),  writes  that  the  tune  was  "  harmon- 
ized by  the  Author".  What  does  "Author"  mean  here? 
Does  it  mean  the  author  (that  is,  the  compiler  and  editor) 
of  the  Fifth  Book,  namely,  Smith;  or  does  it  mean  the 
author  (that  is,  the  composer)  of  the  tune?  Blake  contends 
that  "  author  "  can  not  mean  "  composer  ".  He  tells  us  in 
his  pamphlet  that  he  had  sent  his  discovery  to  Mr.  Kidson, 
the  noted  English  musical  antiquary,  who  replied  that  he 
could  not  see  how  the  phrase  "  harmonized  by  the  Author  " 
invalidated  the  view  that  Smith  might  have  composed  the 
air  some  years  before  he  published  it.  However  this  may 
be,  the  incident  seems  to  me  to  throw  some  light  on  Dr. 
Flood's  assertion  that  Chappell  and  his  copyists  had  sought 
to  "  bolster  up  "  Smith's  claim  by  assigning  a  date  for  the 
Fifth  Book  as  "  1780  or  1785  ".  If  one  tries  to  bolster  up 
a  weak  claim  by  assigning  an  untrue  date,  one  is  properly 
liable  to  the  charge  of  practising  deceit.  Can  this  be  fairly 
said  of  Chappell,  when,  in  a  letter  dated  October  23,  1910, 
a  present-day  antiquary  of  the  eminence  of  Mr.  Kidson  can. 
still  find  ambiguity  in  the  word  "  author  "  ? 

A  reader  who  is  not  well  versed  in  the  literature  of  the 
present  discussion  might  perhaps  suppose  that  Mr.  Blake 


320  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

had  "  discovered  "  in  Smith's  Fifth  Book  the  phrase  "  har- 
monized by  the  Author  "  in  reference  to  the  song  "  To  Ana- 
creon  in  Heaven  ".  Not  only  was  the  phrase  and  its  rela- 
tion to  the  song  well-known  long  since,  but  a  facsimile  of 
the  page  (in  the  Fifth  Book)  containing  that  phrase  ap- 
peared in  Mr.  Sonneck's  Report  in  1909. 

Again,  Smith  does  not  refer  to  his  arrangement  of  "Ana- 
creon  "  as  a  "  glee  ".  It  is  not  wrong  so  to  characterize  his 
composition;  but  he  himself  did  not  so  characterize  it.  He 
called  it  "  Anacreontick  Song  ". 

As  will  be  seen  further  on,  the  copyright  certificate  ap- 
pears to  establish  the  meaning  of  "  author  "  to  be  nothing 
less  than  "  composer  ".  He  was  the  author  (composer)  of 
the  "  whole  "  work,  the  tune  of  the  Anacreontic  Song  in- 
cluded. 

Where,  then,  is  the  "  indisputable  evidence  "  that  Smith 
"  merely  arranged  the  tune  in  the  form  of  a  '  glee  '  "  ? 

3.   Smith  "  Never  Claimed  the  Tune  as  His  ". 

The  remaining  argument  against  Smith's  authorship  of 
the  tune  is  stated  by  Dr.  Flood  in  the  Ave  Maria  as  fol- 
lows : 

Smith  lived  till  the  year  1836,  and  he  never  asserted  his  claim 
as  composer  of  his  melody,  although  Key  had  written  "  The 
Star-Spangled  Banner  "  to  it  in  1814.  Surely  it  stands  to 
reason  that  if  Smith  had  composed  the  tune,  and  that  the  said 
tune  (whether  set  to  "Anacreon  in  Heaven  "  and  the  "  Star- 
Spangled  Banner  ")  had  been  sung,  printed,  and  circulated  all 
over  the  British  possessions  and  in  America,  he  would,  as  a 
true  Britisher,  have  asserted  his  claim  to  it. 

Here  much  is  made  of  Smith's  failure  to  lay  claim  to  the 
authorship  of  the  tune.  In  his  Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets, 
etc.,  Smith  did  declare  that  the  tune  there  given  was  "  har- 
monized by  the  Author  ".     Blake  (and,  following  his  lead, 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner"        321 

Flood)  can  see  in  this  declaration  only  a  confession  that 
Smith  was  not  the  author  of  the  tune,  but  merely  the  author 
of  the  collection;  and  that,  if  Smith  desired  to  vindicate  his 
authorship  of  the  tune,  he  should  have  used  the  word  "com- 
poser "  instead  of  "  author  ".  Mr.  Kidson  could  not  see 
the  force  of  this  contention. 

In  his  Report  Mr.  Sonneck  had  already  discussed  (p.  23) 
this  interesting  question : 

The  words  "  harmonized  by  the  author"  may  of  course  mean 
harmonized  by  the  author  of  the  collection  and  do  not  neces- 
sarily mean  harmonized  by  the  author  of  the  air,  but  these 
words,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  collection  contains  none 
but  Smith's  own  glees,  etc,,  and  the  wording-  of  the  title  ren- 
ders it  probable  that  Smith  refers  to  himself  as  the  composer 
of  the  music.  .  .  .  Probably  Smith  composed  it,  if  he  really 
did  compose  the  tune,  as  a  song  for  one  voice,  and  in  "har- 
monizing "  it  for  several  and  different  voices  he  felt  obliged 
to  wander  away  from  the  original. 

This  brief  extract  from  the  Report  shows  us  that  Mr. 
Sonneck  (a)  held  his  judgment  in  suspense  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  "  author  ",  and  (b)  had  not  committed  himself — 
("  if  he  really  did  compose  the  tune"  are  his  words) — to 
the  common  ascription  of  the  air  to  Smith.  But  here  it  is 
highly  interesting  to  note  with  what  felicity  he  is  able  to 
make  use  of  the  copyright  certificate  subsequently  given  to 
Mr.  Blake  by  the  Registrar  of  Stationers'  Hall  records,  to 
emphasize  (almost,  if  not  indeed  quite,  to  the  point  of  con- 
viction) the  contention  that  Smith  really  did  mean  by  the 
word  "  author  "  nothing  less  than  "  composer  ".  This  in- 
teresting argument  is  thus  stated  in  Mr.  Sonneck's  letters 
to  me  (18  and  27  October,  1913)  : 

Now  the  copyright  record,  as  quoted  with  great  glee  but  little 
understanding  by  Mr.  Blake,  distinctly  says  under  "  Property 
of":  "Author,"   and    under    "Share":   "Whole."      Conse- 


$22  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

quently,  if  copyright  certificates  have  any  evidential  value  at 
all,  Smith  was  officially  recorded  as  claiming:  the  copyright 
in  the  whole  "Fifth  Book"  as  "Author"  (i.  e.  composer, 
because  to  my  knowledge  author  was  the  official  term  used 
in  the  statute  for  all  copyrightable  matter,  including  musical 
works,  and  not  composer,  and  author  can  mean  in  this  instance 
and  under  the  circumstances  composer  only  and  nothing  else, 
since  Smith  does  not  pose  as  compiler  of  the  music,  much  less 
as  author  of  the  texts;  in  several  instances  he  mentions  the 
authors  of  the  texts).  Ergo,  if  his  words  on  p.  33:  "The 
Anacreontick  So?ig  (sic!  poor  Mr.  Blake)  harmonized  by  the 
author"  could  leave  the  doubt  expressed  on  p.  23  of  my 
"Report"  as  to  what  Smith  meant  by  these  words,  these 
words  in  conjunction  with  Smith's  copyright  certificate  now 
would  appear  to  establish,  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  that 
Smith  clai?7ied  to  be  the  author  (composer)  of  "The  Anacre- 
ontick Song":  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven,"  "harmonized" 
by  him  in  this  "  Fifth  Book"  as  a  part-song,  and  designated 
a.  glee  by  me  in  my  "  Report  "  (but  not  by  Smith  himself !). 

And  this  (it  seems  to  me)  inevitable  conclusion  stops  up  the 
keyhole,  which  Air.  Blake  cannot  keep  open  for  escape,  that 
there  is  in  Smith's  Miscellaneous  Collection  of  1780,  on  p.  35, 
a  four-part  piece  headed  simply  "Anacreontic."  In  the  Index 
it  is  called,  "  Is  it  summer  .  .  .  GLEE."  Thereby  Mr.  Blake, 
or  anybody  else,  is  enjoined  from  operating  with  the  over-nice 
distinction  between  "song"  and  "glee"  (*.  e.,  only  when  it 
suits  their  purpose).  They  cannot  say  that  Smith,  in  the  title- 
page  of  his  "  Fifth  Book,"  referred  to  this  "  glee  "  as  the 
popular  Anacreontic  song  composed  by  him  and  not  to  "Ana- 
creon in  Heaven."  No,  the  title-page  apparently  refers  to 
"Anacreon  in  Heaven,"  and  to  this  Anacreontick  Song  in  a 
harmonized  version  Smith  laid  copyright  claim  on  May  8, 
1799,  as  author  (composer). 

Perhaps  he  lied ;  but  it  is  up  to  our  friends  Blake  and 
Grattan  Flood  to  prove  that  he  lied.  Until  they  produce  proof 
of  fraudulent  claim,  Smith's  claim  at  least  will  stand  good  in 
any  court  of  scientific  inquiry,  and  I  cannot  see  how,  under 
the   circumstances,   we   can   deny   that   Smith   composed   "  To 


The  Air  of  the  "  S tar-Spangled  Banner  "         323 

Anacreon  in  Heaven,"  unless  a  prior  authenticated  claim  by 
some  other  composer  is  produced. 

And  with  Smith's  own  copyright  claim  collapses  the  silly 
argument  that,  if  Smith  had  been  the  composer,  he  would 
have  taken  pains  to  tell  the  world  that  he  was  the  composer. 
Well,  he  did,  on  May  8,  1799,  and  that  is  all  there  is  to  this 
phase  of  the  matter  at  present,  so  far  as  I  can  see. 

I  have  said  that  Mr.  Sonneck's  argument  emphasizes  the 
contention  that  Smith  "  claimed  "  the  tune,  and  emphasizes 
it  "  almost — if  not  indeed  quite — to  the  point  of  convic- 
tion ".  One  may  still  hesitate  (and  therefore  I  use  the 
word  "  almost  ")  to  accept  Smith's  claim  to  authorship  be- 
cause of  its  apparent  tardiness;  for  the  tune  was  most 
popular  before  1799,  and  had  been  printed  (as  already 
shown  in  this  article)  in  many  collections,  and  had  not  had 
Smith's  name  attached  to  it.  Stewart's  Vocal  Magazine 
(1797)  gives  (against  the  usual  custom  of  the  time)  the 
names  of  some  of  the  tune-composers,  but  does  not  mention 
Smith's  name  in  connection  with  "  To  Anacreon  in 
Heaven  ".  Why  had  not  Smith  "  claimed  "  it  much  sooner 
than  the  year  1799? 

The  answer  to  this  difficulty  may,  I  think,  take  the  form 
of  an  illustration.  Father  Clarence  Walworth  published, 
in  1853,  ms  translation  ("Holy  God,  we  praise  Thy  name") 
of  the  Te  Deum,  in  a  Redemptorist  ""'Mission  Book", 
without,  I  think,  attaching  his  name  to  it.  Certainly,  he 
compiled  and  edited  that  book,  and  its  title-page  does  not 
bear  his  name.  The  hymn  attained  a  very  widespread  use, 
and  was  sung  both  by  Catholics  and  by  Protestants.  Never- 
theless, it  appears  that  he  did  not  "  claim  "  it  as  his  com- 
position until  the  year  1888 — thirty-five  years  afterwards — 
the  year,  namely,  in  which  he  published  his  collected  poems, 
Andiatorocte,  etc.  (London  and  New7  York).  In  a  recent 
letter  to  me  his  niece  (who  in  1888  acted  as  his  amanuensis) 
recalls  that  Father  Walworth  then  said  to  her :  "  You  see  I 


324  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

put  in  my  Te  Deum.  So  many  Protestants  sing  it  and  have 
it  in  their  hymn  books,  the  people  think  it  is  their  hymn. 
I'll  claim  it  back."  (See  Ecclesiastical  Review,  August, 
1913,  p.  134).  Had  he  died  before  issuing  his  Andia- 
torocte — and  by  the  usual  allotment  of  years  to  man  Le 
might  easily  have  done  so,  as  he  was  then  sixty-eight  year^ 
old — the  mystery  of  the  authorship  might  not  have  been  a  1 
easy  one  to  solve  at  the  present  time.  More  remarkable 
still  is  the  fact  that  in  the  Life  Sketches  of  Father  Wal- 
worth, 18 20- 1  poo,  a  volume  of  more  than  300  pages  pub- 
lished by  his  niece  in  1907,  while  mention  is  made  of  his 
'  Te  Deum  ",  nowhere,  I  believe,  is  the  exact  title  given. 
Now,  there  were  in  his  day  many  translations  of  the  "  Te 
Deum  "  into  English  verse,  just  as  in  Smith's  day  there 
were  many  "  Anacreontics "  (Smith  himself  certainly 
claiming  one  of  these  in  his  1780  publication,  and  appar- 
ently claiming  another  in  his  copyrighted  work  of  1799). 

There  is  another  parallel  feature  in  the  case  of  Smith's 
tune  and  Walworth's  hymn.  Both  had  appeared  in  various 
publications  previously  to  the  formal  claim  of  authorship 
It  was  not  a  rule  in  the  eighteenth  century,  for  musical 
collections  to  give  the  names  of  those  who  composed  the 
tune;  but  Stewart's  Vocal  Magazine,  1797,  gives  the  com- 
posers of  many  of  the  tunes,  in  a  separate  index,  but  does 
not  credit  "  Anacreon  "  to  Smith.  Similarly,  it  is  not  the 
custom  of  our  Catholic  hymnals  to  give  the  names  of  the 
authors  of  the  words.  I  have  nevertheless  found  several 
hymn  books  which  give  some  of  these  names,  and  yet  do 
not  give  the  name  of  Walworth  in  connection  with  his 
translation  of  the  Te  Deum  which  they  use.  His  author- 
ship is  certain,  and  the  silence  of  these  hymnals  must  be 
explained  on  some  other  basis  than  that  of  a  doubt  as  to 
his  authorship.  The  editors  simply  may  not  have  known 
("pure  ignorance,  Madam",  as  Dr.  Johnston  explained  to 
the  lady  who  wondered  why  he  had  denned  "  pastern  "  as 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner" 

"the  knee  of  a  horse"  in  his  Dictionary),  although  they 
lived  in  the  very  years  in  which  Walworth  lived.  Music 
publishers  in  the  eighteenth  century  may  simply  have 
"  clipped  "  from  other  publications,  just  as  hymnal  editors 
do  at  this  day,  often  without  bothering  in  any  nice  way 
about  the  authorship  of  words  or  tune — or  even  about  the 
copyright  of  either. 

Now  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  one  hymnal  published  dui- 
ing  the  life  of  Father  Walworth  did  credit  him  with  the 
authorship  of  the  words  (the  only  one  I  am  aware  of  that 
did  so,  although  I  have  examined  many).  It  is  a  yet  more 
curious  fact  that  this  one  hymnal  was  not  a  Catholic  one, 
but  an  Evangelical  Hymnal  (ed.  by  Hall  and  Lasar,  N.  Y., 
1880).  It  correctly  credits  the  words  to  Walworth,  and 
also  gives  the  date  of  1853.  I  think  that  if,  in  what  Bacon 
calls  "  the  wreck  of  time  ",  this  hymnal  had  disappeared 
and  Father  Walworth  had  not  lived  to  bring  out  his  vol- 
ume of  poems,  we  should  not  find  it  an  easy  matter  to  settle 
at  this  late  day  the  question  of  authorship.  "  Late  day  " — 
but  thirteen  years  after  his  death ! 

This  leads  me  to  the  question :  What  may  not  "the  wreck 
of  time  "  have  accomplished  for  eighteenth-century  litera- 
ture? The  record  stands  that  in  1799  Smith  described  the 
air  in  the  Fifth  Book  as  "  harmonized  by  the  Author  ". 
That  we  cannot  find  a  previous  claim  of  "  authorship  "  by 
Smith  does  not  of  itself  invalidate  the  interpretation  of 
"  author  "  in  the  sense  of  "  composer  ".  One  cannot  prove 
a  negative,  it  is  true;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  one  may  not 
too  roundly  assert  a  universal  positive.  Much  of  the  musi- 
cal literature  of  that  day  may  have  perished;  and  of  what 
remains,  not  everything  is  known  (Mr.  Blake's  labor  has 
shown  us).  Dr.  Flood  himself  had  not  taken  the  trouble — 
although  living  within  a  reasonable  distance  of  London — 
to  verify  the  date  of  copyright  of  the  famous  Fifth  Book, 


226  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

etc.  It  was  reserved  for  an  American  laboriously  to  look 
up  the  records  and  to  fix  that  date  with  certainty.  Mr. 
Blake  contributed  much  to  the  simple  facts  of  the  situation 
by  doing  so;  and.  whether  or  not  we  wish  to  accept  his  in- 
ferences, he  has  the  credit  of  careful  search  on  this  one 
point — a  point  of  much  importance  in  the  discussion. 

One  must  not  be  over-positive  in  implying  or  stating  a 
negative.  An  illustration  may  be  given  here.  It  is  less  than 
twenty  years  ago  that  Mr.  J.  Fairfax  McLaughlin  wrote  in 
the  American  Art  Journal  (v.  68,  194-5,  1896)  :  "  In  the 
1  Vocal  Companion  ',  published  at  Philadelphia  in  1796  by 
Matthew  Carey,  the  words  and  music  of  the  [Anacreontic] 
song  were  first  printed.  The  name  of  the  author  was  not 
given.  I  challenge  any  man  to  point  out  its  publication  in  Eng- 
land prior  to  that  date."  A  writer  in  the  (London)  Musi- 
cal Times  (1  August,  1896)  immediately  referred  Mr.  Mc- 
Laughlin (p.  518)  to  the  Vocal  Magazine,  etc.,  issued  in 
London  in  1778.  In  another  place  in  his  article,  Mr.  Mc- 
Laughlin said :  "  More  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  it 
had  been  published  and  re-published  in  the  United  States, 
1  The  Universal  Songster  ',  published  at  London  from  1825 
to  1834,  printed  the  song  '  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven  '  for  the 
first  time  that  I  have  been  able,  after  a  rather  exhaustive 
search,  to  discover  its  publication  in  Great  Britain,  and 
gave  the  name  of  Ralph  Tomlinson  as  its  author."  And 
again :  "  The  words  of  the  ballad  indicate  that  it  was  written 
for  a  Bacchanalian  club,  but  where  the  club  flourished  or 
when  it  was  established  are  vexed  questions  which  the  most 
indefatigable  research  has  never  been  able  to  solve."  This 
was  written  in  1896;  but  the  questions  had  been  pertinently 
discussed  and  answered  as  far  back  as  1873  by  William 
Chappell  in  Notes  and  Queries.  Much  of  the  literature  of 
the  last  two  decades  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  first 
two  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  has  been  brought  to 


The  Air  of  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  "         327 

light ;  and  one  may  fairly  surmise  that  not  a  little  work  may 
still  be  done  in  this  field.1 

If,  however.  Dr.  Flood  implies  that  Smith  should  have 
laid  any  legal  claim  to  the  tune,  in  view  of  its  wide  use  in 
Ireland,  Scotland  and  America,  we  have  only  to  recollect 
that  the  English  copyright  law  then  in  existence  did  not  ex- 
tend to  Ireland  until  after  the  Act  of  Union  in  1800;  that 
English  copyrighted  books  were  freely  published  in  Dub- 
lin and  sometimes,  to  the  great  annoyance  of  English  pub- 
lishers, were  carried  into  England;  and  that  in  the  Amer- 
ican colonies,  the  Revolution  removed  publishers  from  all 
liability  to  English  law,  whether  statute  or  common,  and 
that,  indeed,  the  British  colonies  were  not  under  the  oper- 
ation of  the  English  copyright  law\  If  Smith  had  copy- 
right, he  could  vindicate  it  nowhere  save  in  Great  Britain ; 
and,  as  might  easily  have  been  the  case,  had  he  transferred 
his  common-law  right  to  the  publisher  of  some  "collection" 
of  music,  his  name  would  not  appear  in  the  records  of  Sta- 

*I  do  not  think  this  an  absurd  suggestion;  for  the  fate  that  sometimes 
overtakes  even  special — and  therefore  peculiarly  valuable — collections  of 
a  bibliophile  or  antiquary  is  illustrated  in  the  very  case  of  Smith  him- 
self. His  sole  heir  becoming  insane,  his  great  library  was  sold  by  an 
auctioneer  who  had  no  knowledge  of  its  value.  Mr.  W.  H.  Husk,  the 
librarian  of  the  Sacred  Harmonic  Society,  writes  thus  in  Grove's  Dic- 
tionary:  "  It  was  sold  April  24,  1844,  such  books  as  were  described  at 
all  being  catalogued  from  the  backs  and  heaped  together  in  lots,  each 
containing  a  dozen  or  more  works;  2191  volumes  were  thrown  into  lots 
described  as  'Fifty  books,  various,'  etc.  The  printed  music  was  sim- 
ilarly dealt  with;  the  MSS.  were  not  even  described  as  such,  but  were 
lumped  in  lots  of  twenties  and  fifties,  and  called  so  many  'volumes  of 
music'  The  sale  took  place  at  an  out-of-the-way  place  in  the  Gray's 
Inn  Road;  Smith's  name  did  not  appear  on  the  catalogue;  nothing  was 
done  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  musical  world,  and  two  dealers,  who 
had  obtained  information  of  the  sale,  purchased  many  of  the  lots  at  very 
low  prices.  These  after  a  time  were  brought  into  the  market,  but  it  is 
feared  the  greater  part  of  the  MSS.  are  altogether  lost."  As  I  have 
said,  Cfcero's  injuria  temporis,  Bacon's  "wreck  of  time,"  will  serve 
to  account  for  the  many  lacunae  in  the  pathway  of  the  historical  in- 
vestigator ! 


328  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

doners'  Hall.  The  words  of  "  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven  ". 
snng  perhaps  in  1 770-1 771,  very  evidently  were  fitted  to 
the  peculiar  rhythm  which  we  find  in  the  tune.  It  is  prob- 
able, at  least,  that  text  and  tune  went  hand  in  hand,  even  at 
that  date.  It  is  certain  that  both  text  and  tune  soon  became 
popular.  It  is  therefore  to  be  wondered  at  that  The  Ana- 
creontic Songs  for  1,  2,  3  &  4  voices  composed  and  selected 
by  Dr.  Arnold  and  dedicated  to  the  Anacreontic  Society 
(London,  J.  Bland,  1785)  did  not  include  "To  Anacreon 
in  Heaven  ".  Why  not?  The  song  was  the  constitutional 
song  of  the  Society,  the  volume  was  dedicated  to  the  So- 
ciety, and  the  songs  it  included  were — some  of  them — se- 
lected. Apparently,  some  copyright  law  forbade  the  inclu- 
sion of  the  tune.  If,  at  that  early  day,  nobody  "  claimed  ,v 
it,  it  seems  hard  to  explain  why,  of  all  the  songs  open  to 
Dr.  Arnold  for  inclusion,  it  should  have  been  passed  over 
in  silence. 

In  this  connection  it  occurs  to  me  that  the  operation  of 
the  first  copyright  law  passed  in  England  might  throw  some 
light  on  the  date  of  copyright  of  Smith's  Fifth  Book,  etc. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  1 770-1 771  offers  us  the  date  of  the 
union  of  text  and  tune.  We  find  Smith  including  text  and 
tune  (the  latter  "  harmonized  by  the  Author  "—whatever 
that  may  mean)  just  twenty-eight  years  later,  that  is,  in 
1799.  Now,  by  the  Copyright  Act  of  1709,  an  author  ob- 
tained copyright  for  fourteen  years,  and  after  this  time  had 
elapsed,  had  another  right  for  a  subsequent  fourteen  years. 
The  total  was  therefore  just  twenty-eight  years.  In  subse- 
quent (1814)  legislation,  these  two  terms  of  fourteen  years 
each  became  a  single  term  of  twenty-eight  years.  Had 
Smith  written  his  tune  in  1 770-1 771,  his  right  to  it  could 
not  survive  the  year  1799;  and  it  is  quite  permissible  to 
suppose  that  he  was  ready,  in  that  year,  with  an  arrange- 
ment of  the  tune  as  a  glee,  so  that  a  new  term  of  copyright 
might  be  granted  him.     Of  course,  it  is  also  quite  permis- 


The  Air  of  the  "  S tar-Spangled  Banner  "         329 

sible  to  suppose  that  some  one  else  had  composed  and  copy- 
righted the  tune,  and  that  Smith  was  ready  to  pounce  upon 
the  tune  as  fit  matter  for  a  glee  and  a  new  copyright  for 
himself.  He  had  the  legal  right  to  do  so.  This  supposition, 
however,  would  perhaps  degrade  Smith  not  merely  to  the 
rank  of  a  "  fourth-rate  musician  "  (as  Dr.  Flood  styles 
him)  but — what  is  much  worse — to  the  rank  of  a  second- 
rate  gentleman  also.  We  may  assume  that  Smith  was  a 
gentleman;  but  we  do  not  have  to  deny  that  he  was  a 
"  fourth-rate  musician ",  for  the  record  of  his  musical 
honors  speaks  for  itself.1 

Finally,  if  no  copyright  had  protected  the  publisher  of 
the  tune,  it  is  not  easy  to  surmise  why  Smith  should  have 
waited  for  his  Fifth  Book  to  include  so  popular  a  melody. 

Smith's  "  Audacity  ". 
I  do  not  know  with  what  intent  Dr.  Flood  introduces  his 
remark  concerning  the  "  audacity  "  of  Smith,  in  the  fol- 

xBorn  in  1750,  he  received  his  first  musical  instruction  from  his 
father  (organist  of  Gloucester  Cathedral  from  1743  to  1782);  later  stud- 
ied under  Dr.  Boyce,  the  eminent  composer  and  musician,  in  London; 
was  a  chorister  of  the  Chapel  Royal  and  "became  an  able  organist,  an 
efficient  tenor  singer,  an  excellent  composer,  and  an  accomplished 
musical  antiquary;"  in  1773,  at  the  age  of  23,  he  was  awarded  two 
prizes  by  the  Catch  Club,  for  a  catch  and  a  canon;  gained  prizes  in  1774 
for  a  glee,  in  1775  for  a  catch  and  a  glee,  in  1776  for  a  glee,  in  1777  for 
a  glee;  assisted  Sir  John  Hawkins  greatly  in  his  History  both  by  reduc- 
ing ancient  compositions  to  modern  notation  and  by  loaning  "valuable 
early  MSS,  from  his  extensive  and  curious  library;"  published  in  1779 
A  Collection  of  English  Songs,  etc.,  composed  about  the  year  1500;  in 
1780  won  another  prize  from  the  Catch  Club;  "published  at  various 
times  five  collections  of  glees,  containing  compositions  which  place 
him  in  the  foremost  rank  of  English  glee  composers;  "  published  a  col- 
lection of  songs,  and  "Twelve  Chants"  for  choirs;  in  1784  was  ap- 
pointed a  gentleman  of  the  Chapel  Royal  and,  in  1785,  a  lay  vicar  of 
Westminster  Abbey;  in  1790  was  engaged  as  organist  for  the  Gloucester 
Festival;  in  1802  became  an  organist  of  the  Chapel  Royal;  in  1812  pro- 
duced Musica  Antiqua,  a  collection  of  music  from  the  12th  to  the  18th 
century;  wrote  an  Introduction  to  the  Art  of  Composing  Music ;  died 
in  1836.     [Condensed  from  Grove's  Dictionary]. 


2,2,0  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

lowing  paragraph;  but  1  may  fairly  conjecture  that  the  pur- 
pose was  to  impugn  Smith's  trustworthiness  when,  in  1799, 
he  claimed  that  the  air  of  "  Anacreon  "  was  "  harmonized 
by  the  Author  ".  This  conjecture  is  not,  indeed,  very  logi- 
cal, because  Mr.  Blake  and,  following  him,  Dr.  Flood  con- 
tend that  by  "  author  "  Smith  did  not  mean  "  composer  ". 
The  major  part  of  Mr.  Blake's  and  Dr.  Flood's  argument 
turns  on  this  (to  their  minds  obvious)  interpretation  oi 
"  author " ;  and  accordingly  both  should  most  earnestly 
affirm  the  absolute  trustworthiness  of  Smith.  That  Smith's 
veracity  should  be  impeached  (and,  of  all  men,  by  the  two 
consentient  interpreters  of  Smith's  own  words)  is  not,  of 
course,  a  logical  thing ;  but  I  am  at  a  loss  how  else  to  inter- 
pret Dr.  Flood's  indignation  at  Smith's  "  audacity  ".  But 
now  to  his  impeachment  of  Smith : 

An  examination  of  Smith's  Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets  reveals 
not  only  the  interesting  fact  that  this  fourth-rate  musician 
merely  arranged  the  long-existing  melody  of  "Anacreon,"  but 
he  also  arranged,  in  a  different  volume,  another  Anacreontic 
song,  and  likewise  "  God  Save  the  King !"  and  had  the  audac- 
ity to  assert  that  "  the  whole  was  composed  by  John  Stafford 
Smith  about  the  year  1780."     (The  italics  are  Dr.  Flood's.) 

The  hastily-written  English  of  this  paragraph  might 
easily  mislead  the  reader.  It  is  not  an  examination  of 
Smith's  Fifth  Book  which  will  reveal  to  us  his  composition 
of  "  another  Anacreontic  song,  and  likewise  '  God  Save  the 
King!'  .  .  .",  etc.  These  things  were  revealed  to  Mr. 
Blake  when  he  came  across  the  1780  volume  of  Smith's  in 
an  old-book  shop  in  London. 

But  once  more  to  our  sheep.     Dr.  Flood  marvels  at  the 
audacity  of  Smith  in  declaring  that  he  had  composed  the 
whole  of   a  volume  containing  "God   Save  the  King! 
Readers  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  long  controversies 
waged  about  the  text  and  tune  of  the  British  national  an- 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner"        331 

them  will  fail  to  realize  fully  the  enormous  audacity  of 
Smith  in  claiming  that  air  as  his  own  composition.  Here 
are  some  facts  concerning  that  anthem. 

To  place  the  following  facts  in  proper  perspective  to 
Smith's  audacity,  it  is  necessary  to  recall  that  Dr.  Flood  ac- 
cepts the  common  view  that  Smith  was  born  in  the  year 
1750.  Now  the  anthem  in  question  was  first  printed  in 
Harmonia  Anglicana  (1743  or  1744,  probably)  and 
shortly  afterwards  in  Thesaurus  Musicus  (a  reprint,  re- 
vised, of  the  former  work).  In  1745  it  was  sung  in  Drury 
Lane  Theatre  and  was  received  with  "  tumultuous  applause, 
and  the  example  of  Drury  Lane  was  soon  followed  by 
Goodman's  Fields  and  Covent  Garden  "  (Julian's  Diction- 
ary of  Hymnology,  2nd  ed.,  1907).  A  month  later  the 
words  and  music  appeared  in  the  Gentleman' 's  Magazine, 
and  about  the  same  time  in  a  new  edition  of  the  Thesaurus 
Musicus.  "  The  air  now  rapidly  increased  in  popularity  " 
(Julian's  Dictionary) — and  therefore  must  have  been  uni- 
versally known  by  the  time  (1750)  when  Smith  was  born. 
The  Historical  Edition  of  Hymns  Ancient  and  Modern 
(1909)  further  assures  us  that  "  in  the  second  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  it  became  popular  in  France,  Germany, 
and  Denmark."  That  is,  the  tune  must  have  traveled  even 
to  the  continent  about  the  time  that  Smith  (in  1780)  de- 
clared it  his  own  composition.  He  was  then  a  man  of  thirty 
years  of  age,  and  innumerable  people  must  be  then  living 
who  had  heard  the  anthem  sung  in  the  London  theatres  be- 
fore Smith  was  born,  and  have  read  it  in  the  popular  Gen- 
tleman's Magazine,  or  have  played  it  from  the  musical  col- 
lections, all  of  these  publications  having  appeared  before 
Smith  was  born. 

Had  Smith,  then,  declared  that  he  was  the  composer  of 
an  air  which  so  many  people  could  testify  that  they  had 
heard  sung  or  had  seen  in  print  before  he  was  born,  his  act 
would  not  have  been  one  of  "  audacity  ",  but  rather  one  of 


332  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

the  greatest  tool  hardiness  possible  to  mortal  man.  With 
about  equal  foolishness  might  the  present  writer  claim  to 
have  composed  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  ". 

Dr.  Flood  could  not  but  know  that  the  anthem  was  popu- 
lar before  Smith  was  born;  and  it  is  indeed  because  of  this 
knowledge  that  he  charges  Smith  with  "  audacity  ".  I  am 
not  enough  of  a  psychologist  to  explain  how,  under  these 
circumstances,  Dr.  Flood  could  have  considered  Smith's  act 
"audacious"  rather  than  idiotic.  He  must  (I  presume) 
have  "  complacently  followed  "  Mr.  Blake  down  the  rush- 
ing tide  of  the  latter's  mistaken  enthusiasm.  For  Mr.  Blake 
had  discovered  Smith's  volume  published  in  1780,  in  an  old 
bookshop  in  London;  had  purchased  it  for  eighty  cents 
(although,  as  he  remarks,  he  would  gladly  have  given 
eight  dollars,  and  adds — jocularly,  I  suppose — that  be 
would  sell  it  to  Congress  for  eight  hundred  dollars) ;  had 
found  "  God  Save  the  King  "  in  it;  had  read  on  the  title- 
page  that  Smith  composed  the  "whole"  of  the  volume; 
and  had  been  properly  scandalized  at  such  incomprehen- 
sible audacity.  But  Mr.  Blake  was  not  a  musician ;  he  was 
an  inventor  of  a  device  for  rifles,  and  his  invention  was 
adopted  (so  the  biographical  note  affixed  to  the  binding  of 
his  pamphlet  tells  us)  by  the  United  States  in  the  Spanish- 
American  War.  That  Dr.  Flood  should  have  "  compla- 
cently followed"  Mr.  Blake  is  the  truly  wonderful  thing; 
for  Dr.  Flood  is  a  musician,  as  well  as  a  historian  of  music. 
and  should  immediately  have  suspected  that  something  was 
"  out  of  gear  "  in  Mr.  Blake's  views  concerning  Smiths 
claim  to  the  authorship  of  the  British  national  anthem.  A 
few  moments'  inspection  of  the  volume  itself  would  have 
enlightened  him  as  to  the  exact  claim  of  Smith,  but — he 
followed  Mr.  Blake,  whose  offer  to  sell  the  book  to  Con- 
gress was  quite  superfluous,  for  Congress  possesses  both 
the  1780  volume  and  that  of  1799. 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner"         333 

What,  then,  is  the  explanation  of  the  mystery  of  Smith's 
audacity?  In  his  letters  to  me  of  18  and  27  October,  Mr. 
Sonneck  tells  simply  and  clearly  what  it  really  was  that 
Smith  laid  claim  to  as  composer : 

Blake  refers  to  the  words,  "  the  whole  compos'd  by  John  Staf- 
ford Smith,"  on  the  title-page  of  his  "A  Miscellaneous  Col- 
lection of  New  Songs,  Catches,  and  Glees,"  London,  James 
Blundell  (published,  as  the  contents  prove,  in  the  year  1780), 
and  deduces  his  imputation  that  Smith  fraudulently  claimed 
with  the  above  words  to  have  been  the  composer  of  "  God 
Save  the  King  "  from  the  fact  that  on  p.  27  "  God  Save  the 
King "  appears  in  ''A  Canon  in  Subdiapente ;  2  in  1  on  a 
plain  Song."  Mr.  Blake,  who  is  not  by  profession  a  musician 
or  historian,  breaks  down  under  his  own  argument  by  quoting 
Smith's  Index,  in  which  this  particular  piece  appears  as  "  Si 
Deus  pro  nobis  .  .  .  Canon  .  .  .  27.''  The  puzzle  is  simple 
enough  for  a  musician :  "  Si  Deus  pro  nobis  "  are  the  words 
put  to  the  "Canon  in  Subdiapente;  2  in  1,"  and  the  "plain 
song,"  or  "  cantus  firmus,"  as  we  would  say  nowadays,  on 
which  Smith  composed  his  canon  was  the  melody  of  "  God 
Save  Great  George  our  King,"  duly  printed  with  these  words. 
.  .  .  Dear  old  Smith's  Index  shows  to  what  he  laid  claims  as 
"'composer"  of  "the  whole":  the  canon  (as  was  correct) 
and  nothing  more. 

And  so  wre  leave  Smith's  audacity  behind  us  and  proceed 
to  fresh  woods  and  pastures  new. 

Altogether,  it  may  readily  be  admitted  that  the  argu- 
ment for  the  ascription  of  the  tune  to  Smith  is  not  a  weak 
one.  We  can  now7  take  the  next  step,  and  consider  the 
probable  provenance  of  the  words. 

4.  The  Authorship  of  the  Words. 

Assuming  that  Blake's  proofs  have  quite  demolished  the 

common  ascription  of  the  tune  to  John  Stafford  Smith,  the 

question  of  the  authorship  would  remain  an  open  one,  with 

the  probabilities,   nevertheless,   remaining  in   favor  of  an 


334  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

English  origin  in  view  of  the  use  of  the  song  by  the  Eng- 
lish Anacreontic  Society — unless,  indeed,  we  should  find 
that  the  words  of  the  Anacreontic  Song  were  not  of  Eng- 
lish origin.  Dr.  Flood  properly  addresses  himself  next  to 
this  question : 

First,  let  me  note  that  the  words  of  the  Anacreontic  song,  now 
replaced  by  the  words  of  "  The  Star-Spangled  Banner,"  are 
of  Irish  origin,  and  evidently  emanated  from  Ireland  about 
the  year  1765.  They  were  slightly  altered  in  1770;  and,  as 
such,  were  printed  in  1778,  while  some  further  alterations 
were  made  in  the  version  published  in  1781.  The  ascription 
of  the  song  to  "  Ralph  Tomlinson,  Esq.,"  is  based  solely  on 
the  fact  that  it  was  sung  by  that  gentleman  as  president  of  the 
Anacreontic  Club  in  London  about  the  year  1771. 

This  statement  is  so  replete  with  dates  that  a  reader  is 
almost  bewildered  by  the  exactness  of  the  details.  How- 
ever, all  the  dates  may  be  passed  over  except  the  first  date 
— and  the  most  important  of  all — given  by  Dr.  Flood  as 
1765  (or,  rather,  as  "  about  "  1765).  This  date  is  so  very 
important  that,  despite  the  vagueness  of  the  additional  and 
qualifying  word  "  about  ",  we  are  forced  to  pause  and  ex- 
amine it  closely.  If,  about  the  year  1765,  the  words  of  the 
Anacreontic  Song  emanated  from  Ireland,  then  we  must, 
indeed,  relinquish  the  legend  ascribing  their  composition  to 
Ralph  Tomlinson,  whose  connection  with  the  song  dates 
back  only  (and  only  with  some  probability)  to  1770  or 
1771. 

Now,  Dr.  Flood  asserts  this  important  date  of  1765,  but 
does  not  offer  a  scintilla  of  evidence  on  a  point  of  capital 
importance  for  his  argument.  He  declared  that  the  words 
of  the  song  "  evidently  emanated  from  Ireland  ",  but  offers 
no  evidence  of  the  emanation,  or  of  his  reason  for  con- 
jecturing that  the  emanation  took  place  "  about  "  the  year 
1765.  It  is  needless  to  say  that,  in  an  argument  such  as  he 
is  carrying  on  against  an  almost  universal  conviction  of 


The  Air  of  the  "Star-Spangled  Banner"         335 

learned  investigators,  something  more  plausible  than  an 
unsupported  assertion  should  be  offered  by  him  to  the  world 
of  interested  scholars. 

Is  it  not  possible  that  in  writing  the  date  "  1765  "  Dr. 
Flood  may  be  relying  merely  on  his  memory  ?  We  ask  the 
question,  for  the  reason  that  Mr.  Blake  acknowledges  hav- 
ing received  from  Dr.  Flood  some  information  about  the 
publication,  by  E.  Rhames,  at  Dublin,  of  a  song  "  To  Ana- 
creon  in  Heaven  ".  Mr.  Blake  accepted  the  date  of  pub- 
lication as  being  between  the  years  1775  and  1790;  and  the 
song  may  have  been  printed  in  Dublin  as  early  as  1775. 
Now,  "  1775  "  sounds  very  like  "  1765  ".  It  is  true  that 
there  are  only  ten  years  between  the  dates  in  point  of  time 
— but  there  are  untold  aeons  between  the  dates  in  point  of 
argumentative  value.  If  the  words  were  known  in  Ireland, 
and  emanated  thence  "about  1765",  then  Tomlinson's 
claim  to  their  authorship  falls  to  the  ground;  but  if  "1765" 
should  have  been  written  "  1775  ",  then  Tomlinson's  name 
is  the  first,  associated,  so  far  as  we  now  know,  with  the 
words. 

Apropros  of  Dr.  Flood's  rejection  of  Tomlinson's  claim 
and  the  reason  usually  given  for  the  ascription  to  him,  I 
may  quote  from  a  letter  I  have  received  from  Mr.  James 
Warrington,  the  noted  hymnologist  and  musical  antiquary . 
"  As  to  the  words,  there  is  no  doubt  they  were  written  by 
Ralph  Tomlinson.  .  .  .  His  name  is  on  the  title-page  of  the 
copy  which  Dr.  Cummings  dates  1770  or  1771.  Dr.  Cum- 
mings  sent  me  a  copy  of  this  title  some  years  ago,  and  I 
regret  that  I  cannot  just  now  lay  my  hands  on  the  corres- 
pondence." 

Thus  far,  we  cannot  consider  the  elimination  of  the  Eng- 
lish claim  to  words  and  tune  a  completed  piece  of  work. 
But  at  this  point  Dr.  Flood  begins  his  positive  proof  of  the 
Irish  origin  of  the  tune. 

H.  T.  Henry. 


AMBROSE  PARE,  FATHER  OF  MODERN  SURGERY 


DR.  EDWARD  A.  MALLON 

BEFORE  discussing  the  question,  if  any  people  of  in- 
telligence continue  to  account  it  an  open  question  : 
"Was  Ambrose  Pare  Catholic  or  Huguenot,"  we  will 
present  a  brief  outline  of  his  eventful  career. 

He  was  born  in  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, in  the  village  of  Bourg-Hersent,  vicinity  of  Laval 
in  Maine.  The  older  biographies  dated  his  birth  in  1510: 
the  weight  of  revised  research  favors  the  year  1 5 1 7 , 
beyond  serious  contradiction.  In  either  case,  Pare  lived 
in  a  cycle  of  momentous  history  for  his  time  and  ours  ; 
contemporary  that  he  was  with  the  outbreak  and  process 
of  that  political,  religious  and  social  disruption  which  is 
conventionally  styled  the  "  Reformation. "  In  France, 
Pare's  life  coincided  with  no  fewer  than  seven  reigns ;  to 
wit,  of  Kings  Louis  XII,  Francis  I,  Henry  II,  Francis  II, 
Charles  IX,  Henry  III  and  Henry  IV.  Among  their 
foreign  compeers,  suffice  it  to  recall  the  Emperor  Charles 
V,  and  Philip  II  of  Spain,  Henry  VIII  and  Edward  VI, 
Mary  Tudor  and  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England. 

Very  little  is  known  of  Pare's  youthful  years ;  he  is 
believed  to  have  studied  elementary  Latin  with  Monsieur 
d'Orsay,  chaplain  to  a  gentleman  near  Laval,  and  later 
he  was  apprenticed  to  Master  Vialot,  barber-surgeon  in 
Laval.  About  this  point  in  his  career,  there  came  down 
from  Paris  the  lithotomist  Laurence  Colot,  to  perform 
an  operation  on  a  confrere  of  the  chaplain's ;  and  then  it 
was  that  Ambrose,  assisting  at  the  operation,  felt  stimu- 
lated to  study  surgery  for  good.  For  that  matter,  his 
brother  Jean  was  a  master  barber- surgeon  at  Vitre  in 


Gaylord  Bros, 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

PAT.  JAN.  21.  1908 


